Interventionism is Preferable to Isolationism
This debate concerns the foreign policy of the United States. I will be arguing for the stance that the U.S. should act as the world's "policeman" and be involved in foreign affairs. Con will argue for the military withdrawal of the U.S. and lack of engagement in other countries thereof.
Interventionism - the policy or doctrine of intervening for the purposes of ending conflict, securing human rights, and stabilizing regions of unrest
Preferable - desirable, better
Isolationism - the opposition to any military action that is not in direct response to an attack on U.S. soil and the reluctance to engage in foreign affairs
1. BOP is on Pro.
2. No trolling/semantics/kritiks
3. Voting is on arguments only
4. Con accepts all definitions
First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round (rebuttals that follow from the previous round are allowed). Otherwise, arguments and counter-arguments are free to be used in the discretion of the debater.
Thanks to AdventureExplorer for accepting! I'm hoping this will be a memorable one.
I hope both sides get to make there case in this great debate!
Best of Luck to Pro and Hopefully this becomes a fun and knowledgeable debate :)
= Case =
Interventionism is necessary for an orderly world.
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you" -Leon Trotsky.
As part of my argument in this debate, I will show that if a massive world power known as the U.S. decides to become isolationist, the world will erupt in conflict. Without a policeman, criminals will roam free, doing damage that otherwise not be done without some authority that is needed. to stop them. My case is analogous to bullies on a playground: without any adult supervision, some kids will gradually come up and start bullying others. Similarly, without the help of the U.S., predator nations and organizations will form that will terrorize others, as has been shown in history countless times. For the U.S., pacifism is the greatest cause of conflict.
In this view of foreign policy, the country necessary for global order would need an outlook that is (1) committed to global security, (2) has military forces adequate to meet those commitments, (3) is willing to intervene in regional crises to protect allies and (4) is ready to confront or deter aggressive regimes. There is simply no other way to achieve global security and orderliness than by intervening, and a disorderly world is inevitable in the case of isolationism. While not everyone wants to grow up to be a cop, no one wants to live in a neighborhood where there is no cop.
There are many examples from America's reputation and history of intervention that entirely prove my points about global disorder and how better off the world was when America decided to get involved.
This first case will start as a great example of what happened when the U.S. decided to be isolationist and refused to intervene in any conflicts. It was the decade in which Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that "The definite policy of the United States from now on is one opposed to armed intervention". In that same decade, Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, and Germany took over Czechoslovakia in 1938. Shortly afterwards, Nazi Germany invaded Poland, and World War II erupted. The Holocaust began and the world grew increasingly chaotic. All of this happened while the U.S. was away and had been taking a break from the world. Because it did, war began to scourge the world and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin tried to fill the gaps where America's presence as policeman was absent. It wasn't until December of 1941 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor that the U.S. finally decided to join the war and end the horrors that were being committed by the imperialist regime of the Nazis. Their war machine was stopped.
Had the U.S. been there and involved in the world in the 20's and especially the 30's, these conflicts could have been prevented or at least reduced so that the causalities were not as great as they were. The idea that "if America leaves the world alone, the world will leave it alone" was ultimately proven false. Unfortunately, that mentality still exists in the minds of some. To add, each of these countries, the invader and well as the invaded, had signed onto the Kellog-Briand Pact, which was treaty that outlawed war and reduced arms expenditures. This is an indicator that treaties do not always work in preventing war, because all the involved countries abused it despite signing it. One cannot expect foreign nations to always be honest in their dealings, especially with ones who desire more power, land, and conquest. The U.S. must be there to stop these nations if they get out of hand. The rise of militarism was not ended in the 30's, but it could have been if America acted as they should've.
Challenges to global security, threats and acts of terrorism, and possession of nuclear weapons are harmful to not only residents of the Middle East region but a danger to Western democracies. With the rise to power of communist and authoritarian dictators comes the higher possibility of war, genocide, and instability. If the U.S. leaves the Middle East unchecked, the worst will be brought out and dangers will be posed to its good citizens and the rest of the orderly world.
A perfect example of such was Saddam Hussein, the brutal dictator of Iraq for 35 years. His reign was a central threat to peace in the Middle East. He rewarded the families of suicide bombers with $25,000, actively harbored terrorists, and started wars (such as the Iran-Iraq war) for his own personal gain and conquest. In fact, "Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives." This was a serious threat to American security as it could have been the training ground for attackers similar to those that commissioned the events of 9/11. Iraq was a predator nation - one which would go to the extreme to cause terror in other pro-Western civilizations, such as Israel, Europe, America, and even neighboring states like Iran. Worse yet, Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) which had the potential to eradicate the lives of thousands in a day. As British historian Andrew Roberts concluded in a recent video from studying this issue: "Any war against terror that did NOT involve toppling this brutal dictator who might supply WMD to terrorists for future attacks would have been absurd".
And then there was Hillary Clinton, who justified her 2002 vote in favor of the authorization to use military force in Iraq: "I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. . . . It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security".
Interventionism is most certainly better than isolationism. It is not preferable to allow a mass-murdering dictator who harbors terrorists and threatens the region with WMD, challenging U.S. authority to power and any pro-democratic nations. In an isolationist state, every threat would be ignored. The U.S. would simply retreat from all involvement, concluding that there is no reason to fight enemies and encourage democracy and human rights. There was no reason to doubt that Saddam had WMD, because he had already used it in the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's.
On May 20, 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq, and it proved to be extremely effective. Baghdad was under American control by April 13, and just 8 months later, Saddam was captured and turned over to Iraqi authorities, until he was tried and executed. This proved to be not only effective in toppling a brutal and genocidal dictator, it prevented the rise of would-be Saddams. With the U.S. act of low tolerance for flagrant challenges to global order, other countries got the point. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi abandoned his nuclear program just one week after Saddam's arrest. Iran seemed to get the point too: they also halted its nuclear program in 2003. Syria ended its 29-year occupation of Lebanon not long after the invasion in 2005.
The occupation of Iraq by U.S. was very beneficial for the country. With America's help, "Iraq would write a new constitution, vindicate the ideals of democracy, create the institutions necessary for a free-market economy, improve women's rights, serve as a role model for other Arab states, tame Shiite and Sunni extremism, bridge sectarian and ethnic differences, and share its oil wealth in an equitable sectarian ratio. Iraq was to become another Japan, transformed from dictatorship to democracy"
The intelligent application of U.S. military force in a counterinsurgency operation proved successful. An estimated 30,000 Iraqis were killed in 2006; by 2009, the number had dropped to less than 5,000 - a decline of more than 80 percent. American causalities also fell from 823 to 149 in the same period. This was a result of the routing of Shiite and Sunni insurgents by a combination of American and Iraqi arms. Intervention, as was shown here, saved the lives of Iraqis and prevented more death that would have been caused by Saddam.
Retreating in 2011 proved to be a mistake. Not long after the withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the order of Obama, the Islamic State (ISIS) would come to power and begin another war machine of death and destruction, and it all came by what I call isolationism.
 Stephens, Bret. America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
In favor for the best interests of the USA and the Globe I will be arguing for Isolationism which Pro has defined as “the opposition to any military action that is not in direct response to an attack on U.S. soil and the reluctance to engage in foreign affairs” I will hold that this means to not involve ourselves militarily in foreign affairs but I will pick up that we should still interact with other nations in terms of economics and diplomacy but rather America should mind its own business and not intervene in other countries with our military. For Example, Under my view we would not invade or support any wars in Mexico but we can still negotiate with them such as in trade agreements, having certain human rights in our laws etc.
“No nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both”
I will be debunking Pro's claim in the next round.
I will be arguing that US Interventionism has caused more global instability than it has solved. It has created a more greater national security threat to the USA. And if we continue on this path of foreign entanglements we will see the fall of the USA as a great nation.
In my view of foreign policy, diplomacy and cooperation of all nations will be valued higher than war. The USA will end it's overloaded defense budget that is adding more to our debt everyday, We will never intervene in other countries affairs as long as they don't attack us directly on our soil. Most Nations don't pose a threat to the USA the major security issue of the 21st century is terrorism which have no allegiance to any country and are fighting for a purpose through terror. Thus the US Government has launched a nebulous “War on terror” which has cost us trillions of dollars onto our debt. Has destroyed almost all the civil liberty's that this country once enjoyed and have increased peoples hate to America both at home and abroad and has increased terrorist activity. In my world, War will be something Americans don't even think about and I think through the cooperation of other nations we will fulfill George Washington's wishes which was
"My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth." -George Washington
Diplomacy and pacifism will be Americas foreign policy, As Martin Luther King showed in order to stand for something you must do it non violently and we go civil rights for Americans not as a result of destroying and intervening in society but through talking with political leaders and demonstrating what we stand for. Diplomacy, Cooperation, and understanding of other nations will lead to a better future for America and for the rest of the world.
Every Superpower that has continued in endless wars has fallen rather because of or part of the reason being to that war.
Romans: Most Historians today now attribute the fall of the roman empire to three things.
1. Military Overspending and trying to maintain all its wars in all parts of the empire which in that period was called “the known world”
2. Political instability and corruption
3. A disastrous economic crisis.
We could see all three happening in America today but since this debate is on foreign policy I will focus on the 1st one. The empire of Rome stretched from Britain to Persia but as rome now had to control and maintain order throughout the known world this unwinnable warfare lead to their demise. Fighting off barbarians in Briton, The Invading Goths and Hun's from Eurasia, and the endless skirmishes and wars with Persia back then called “Parthia”. This created huge amounts of debt for its already unstable economic system, the price of maintaining Europe as a policeman as spread the empires resources thin and thus they were unable to defend themselves from all the wars they were waging they slowly lost their influence and land and lost the wars they had to do since they took it upon themselves to be Europe's Policeman. They also took a hard hit to their overspending and how all these wars halted cultural and technological advancements in Rome which all coming together was a reason why the empire fell and America is looking like being in that dangerous situation.
In the words of Ben Franklin
“Wars are not paid for in wartime, the bill comes later”.
America spends the most money on its defense than the of the following top 14 countries defense spending combined. This overspending on defense and fighting in desert wars in the middle east is BANKEURPING America. As the Romans had a problem with their spending so do we, The cost of war is felt by the losses of Americans in unnecessary wars but the debt the war carries after its over is as bad. Since launching the war on terror and starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has now come to a final bill of 5 Trillion dollars. This type of money wasted away in trying to run other countries affairs is IMMORAL especially when we have problems that need to be solved here at home. In trying to police the world and wiping out anybody who opposes us in the name of having security for its nation, in this chase we are going into bankruptcy
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." -Dwight D. Eisenhower
Wars have come at a cost of our freedoms.
Besides losing our reputation and our money and men and women in wars that we had no business in interfering we have lose something that most American a few decades ago considered to be something that can be never taken away. In times of war governments will impose more oppression onto its people under the banner of fighting some foreign country.
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace-makers for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. [Nazi leader Herman Goering]
"A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny." -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded." -F.A. Hayek
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
Ever since the USA has become the World Leader and started the global war on terror after the 911 attacks, Americans are now left with nothing left of the rights that they were born with. The List of civil rights and liberties that are now gone are long and the reason for this is to make America “safer” and the need for a less free society in order to help combat terrorism. The list of freedom abuses are
Americas role in policing the world has made us not what America used to be with us always in some sort of war and in trying to make a world a orderly place we have made America an even worse place to be and almost almost the same as the terrorists we are trying to fight. Why do we detest terrorists for torture when we do it? Why do we detest foreign governments for violating freedoms when our government does the same?. If going to war to maintain order in other countries makes us not who we are then I say that interventionism in foreign affairs is not worth it.
I will be arguing that Usa Intervention has caused even more hatred and terrorist's being active toward a militant and interventionist USA but I will argue in detail on this since it rebuts how US Interventionism makes a world a more safer place which was brought up by Pro. But this argument can go both ways and thanks to Limits I will post this next time. I will also bring up how a warmongering USA have made countries all around the world hate us and the vast majorty of those coutnries believing that the USA is the number one threat to world peace.
"Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it." -Thomas Jefferson
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertrand Russell
Those were some interesting points by Con. His Round 2 sources are in the fifteenth comment on this debate.
The Role of World Policeman
As part of his case, Con compared the Roman Empire to the world power of today: the U.S. This is an unfair comparison on many accounts, and it asserts the role of "policeman" as to belonging to the Romans, which is historically incorrect. I will show several reasons as to why America's role in the world is drastically different to the Romans.
1) The Roman Empire was an expansionist state which focused mainly on growing its power and influence rather than helping nearby areas or allies. In fact, the existence of nations and allies as we know them today were drastically different from the foreign affairs of today. At its height, the empire was the most extensive political and social structure in Western civilization, and was responsible for the conquest of a huge portion of Europe including some of Great Britain, all of the north Africa coastline, and a chunk of of the Middle East. In comparison, the United States does not seek to conquer or annex foreign territories. It does not seek to claim rightful control over nations that it invades, nor has it ever done so in recent history, with its involvement in wars in the past. It is nonsensical to compare America with the Romans because of the huge difference in their ideals and goals. The Romans sought to take land and control Europe, while America's foreign policy has always been to stabilize regions of conflict, support its allies against agression with military force if needed, and to topple brutal dictators who attempt to take advantage of their people. The Roman Empire's goals were nowhere near in comparison to what the U.S. currently seeks to accomplish, it being for the good of the world and for its security. In this way it strives to be the police of the world by ending terrorism when and where it becomes awful. The Romans were the complete opposite of policeman - they were barbarians in the sense that their mission was to conquer and to fight wars for the purpose of imperialistic goals. The reason for U.S. involvement in world affairs is not because of conquest, but for bringing security to the world.
2) The fall of the Roman Empire was due, in large part, to barbaric ways of conquest that in no way resembles the U.S. The Romans were not only involved with war all the time, they surrounded themselves with it. The political instability of the Romans, their desire to war with literally everyone that stepped in their way, and their overexpansion all contributed to the fall of the empire, and such reasons for their fall are unheard of in terms of U.S. problems. The role of policeman does not mean to fight with every enemy one has, but to intervene when serious conflict breaks out that can affect the lives of many. If the U.S. was like Rome, it would see itself as justified in an invasion of Cuba to gain more land. Clearly this is not the case, nor ever has been for the U.S.
To add, involvement in foreign affairs with the use of military does not affect the general population as much as Con seems to believe it does. What it means is the deployment of soldiers to other countries to help them out, while affairs inside the U.S. remain normal as they always have been.
Con's portrayal of interventionism is somewhat misleading. He seems to believe that in this view of foreign policy, a superpower must be at war all the time. One can be interventionist in the sense that they are willing and ready to protect their allies of needed, and not necessarily be intervening 24/7. In the first round, I provided four requirements for the U.S. to have if one wishes for an orderly world, two of.which included being committed to global security and being ready and willing to confront or deter aggressive regimes. The nature of such an outlook may mean that invasion is necessary at times, but not something that must happen every single day. In contrast, isolationism is the indifference to global security and aggressive regimes, and the unwillingness to defend the countries that the U.S. has already agreed to do by past treaties.
It's no secret that war can be expensive, but ultimately this contention does not win over the preservance of lives, which is oftentimes what invasion is about. My arguments have and will continue to show that intervention is worth it when it is done right. On another note, spending really hasn't been that bad in comparison with other past wars. For example, "compared to past U.S. conflicts, spending on the Iraq war has been relatively small—at its height, spending on WWII helped drive government spending to 42 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At its height, operations in Iraq cost around 1 percent of GDP."
Con has yet to prove that U.S. reputation has fallen as a result of interventionism. He also must show why other countries' opinions matter and how they hurt the U.S. in any significant way, if they do. This seems like a pretty minor point, and it is not backed up by any evidence. It rests completely on a bare assertion.
Cost of Freedom
A list of freedoms that have been "curtailed" was provided by Con, but he fails to connect any of them to war. How does invading Iraq or Afghanistan lead to NSA surveillance? Con needs to be a lot more clear by showing how using military actually affects this and how these scandals would not exist had we not been interventionist in our policies overseas.
Con claimed to be able to show how interventionism makes countries more unstable but has yet not done so. In my view, this world needs a policeman, and if the U.S. doesn't fill the gap, then others will try to take the reins of control and use it in an inproper way. The case for isolationism does not come close to being as strong for the one that is willing to keep promises on foreign commitments and help the world maintain the order it needs.
We are, the fifth battalion in the Liberation Army, declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.
If our demands are not met, all of our functional groups in the army will continue to execute our missions against the military and civilian targets in and out the United States
Bin Laden asserted that America was massacring Muslims in "Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Iraq" and that Muslims should retain the "right to attack in reprisal." He also claimed the 9/11 attacks were not targeted at people, but "America's icons of military and economic power,"
I have made my case on why the USA should mind its own business and remain isolationist or else if it does Intervention it will create even more instability and will create the problems I have mentioned before.
I will admit that I am not a guy who will always be wanting to enforce a strict round structure in every debate, as I believe my opponent's and I should have a bit of freedom to structure our cases as we please. However, Con has made some framework errors that seem to hurt his side of this debate:
1) Con seems to have been mixing his case with his rebuttal in Round 3, and emphasizing on his own reasons for propelling isolationism with the line "I will be making my last two reasons.." Since I hold the BoP, Con should be working to refute my case more than anything as a fulfillment of my burden would mean an affirmation of the resolution, regardless of any arguments Con makes for his own case.
2) As my case is the biggest obstacle for a Con win, with it attempting to fulfill the BoP, it should have been imperative for my opponent to rebut it all. Instead, he decided to drop my 1930's argument and respond to it in the last round. This is unfair to me as I will be unable to respond to anything that is said about my WWII example, and would have been able to otherwise. This is a big part of my case, so stuffing its response into the last round is hurtful for Con's chances at negating it fully.
Attacks on America
My opponent states that the cause of the separate attacks on the World Trace Center were due to U.S. interventionism. There's issues with this thinking:
1) Con cherry picks two isolated examples of terrorism, and states that they could have been prevented by not being involved in the Middle East. This is naive thinking, because it doesn't take in the bigger picture of terrorism. In Round 2, I showed how the Iraqi dictator encouraged suicide bombers and how Baghdad fostered multiple terrorist organizations that were actively causing terror around them. Intervention in Iraq toppled this brutal dictator and ended up deciding the capitol city, which would lead to the listing of the terrorist hive that was functioning there.
2) The motivation for the attack of the WTC in 1993 was not U.S. interventionism. In Con's first quote, Yousef stated that his justification "for the attack was to punish the U.S. for its support for the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories". This isn't America's intervention, but rather its mere support for the Israeli state. If Con wants attacks to stop, he should be advocating for the severing of alliances, not interventionism. Even so, the deaths of 6 people are too miniscule for America to go to such drastic measures.
3) This kind of reasoning bends to the will of the terrorists. If the U.S. we're doing something very good which was anti-terrorist in nature, there will be some retaliation. The fact that such retaliation exists doesn't warrant the full withdrawal of such a measure. Con listed demands that Yousef, but I hope that such demands are to be taken into consideration as they are made in the form of bribery.
In Round 2, I showed how intervention and the build-up in Iraq stabilized the region and lowered the death count there. Con, for some reason, assumes that Iraq was in chaos when we toppled Saddam but this is nothing but a bare assertion. I've showed how democracy spread there after we helped them out and how the order there was set into place by the time we had left. He also assumes that the Iraqi government, which encouraged and fostered suicide bombers, had order set in place there. This is preposterous thinking and in no way should be bought at face value.
ISIS was the group that formed after we had left. This is an argument for involvement because it shows what happens when troops pull out and the U.S. abandons a country: chaos returns. The president could have agreed to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq to help the country progress forward, but instead the U.S. abandoned their goals and terrorists soon filled the void.
Again, this point is moot. It is irrelevant because it relies on the opinions of some od 60,000 people across many countries in order to "prove" that the U.S. is evil. It's an Ad Populum fallacy, and the serving size of the poll was not even that big to begin with. I do not see how peoples' opinions affect the legitimacy of the benefits of U.S. intervention, but rather just focuses on personal thought in order to prove a point that isn't being proven.
The Weapons of Mass Destruction already *had* been used by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, and had been used on the Iranians, so to deny that he had them is simply nonsensical. Con states that a search was made in Iraq for WMDs which didn't find them, but reports of finding such disastrous weapons have already been made! In fact:
"From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.
In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."
[ 3] http://www.nytimes.com...
I Will agree that the way Me and Varrack did this debate made it not as we intended, However,
1. I think we can all agree that we wanted a debate where Pro had a BOP and i would try to debunk his points to fulfil his BOP but however this debate ended up being both sides presenting there case and the other side trying to debunk it. I will say that this is partly my fault since i wanted a case for Isolationism to be better than Interventionism which i have shown but i have not done as good of a job debunking of Pro brought up in his defense. So for this round i will bring up objections to his main points for interventionism and the reason why i did not but it all in was because of the way the debate was formatted or turned out and the characer limit.
World War 2 and Interventionism
I Will rebut Pro's claim on how invading Germany earlier would of resulted in World war 2 not happening and by standing by we let Germany go out of control. First i will show how it is actully Interventionism which caused World war 2 but you will need to look at the core reasons why Germany invaded in the first place, It was because of certain reasons
Germany and most of the axis powers had a flawed view and that was called Interventionism which can be seen by Germany invading Europe, Japan invading Asia and so on. Now we need to adress why they got this idea on using intervention on our countries. It was because during World war 1 when they lost and they had to sign the Treaty of Versailles they were put with the blame of having started World war 1 and all this santactions and the Western World trying to act like it can run the world tried to punish Germany and as a result of this meddling this creates the seeds for world war 2 so i suggest Pro look at the cause not what was already happening and in my view since Germany was now invading the World and Japan invaded us then i will be perfectly ok in going to war with the axis powers. There's reasons on why countries are the way they are and most of the time its because we dont let them seddle out their own prombems and we try to do that and that leads to even worse promblems as i have shown.
ISIS and Iraq Instabilty
Pro says that ISIS being created by Us was a bare assertion which is false, I state my case and prove my arugment with links which if checked can find articles expalning how ISIS was created by the War on terror.
Accoriding to mutiple sourcses which i will site. When we invaded Iraq in 2003 we created a puppet goverment which was led by the Shia marjoirty which started to suppress the Shunna minroirty which led to tensions and then a uprising which created the perfect battleground for other terror groups to fight the USA which caused even more Instablity and terror on earth which could of been avoided if we just did not get involded. In other words The Us Invasion led to the creation to the very terriosists the Us wanted to get rid of in the first place because iraq was the perfect training ground for terrosim combined with massive poverty, umemployment and relgious funaticism this led to the creation of Isis. They came to light after Syria fell to Civil war and they started to overtake parts of Syria and Iraq and they easily toppled the 25 billion dollar army we gave to Iraq to defend itself with. Unless Pro says we should occupy all the unstable countries forever in the world and run them ourselves like puppet goverments then he needs to concede that Us Interventionism caused ISIS and the Iraq Instabilty.
WMB's In Iraq
Pro says that there were Wmb's in Iraq and he sites the widely sited New York times article about it which NeoCon's point to as showing that George Bush was Right!. However Quoting from a article that debunks said article,
The right was confused. The NYT piece, though important, referenced pre-1991 weapons. Everything Republicans said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion was still completely wrong.
With this in mind, over the weekend, the New York Times had another fascinating, well-researchedpiece on Iraq’s abandoned chemical weapons, and Republicans, apparently having learned literally nothing in October, are once again very excited by the prospect that Bush was “right all along.”
The fact that the right hasn’t given up isn’t admirable; it’s sad. Pouncing on details Republicans don’t understand actually has the opposite of the intended effect – these bizarre, misguided celebrations serve as a reminder of just how spectacularly wrong they were, are, and will continue to be.
To reiterate some of the points from our discussion in October, I can appreciate why the right is still a little sensitive on this. A Republican president lied the nation into a disastrous war, the consequences of which we’re still struggling to address, based in large part on weapons stockpiles that didn’t exist. That conservatives are still searching for some kind of evidence to justify the catastrophic Bush/Cheney failure isn’t too surprising.
But it’s still wrong. Saddam had a chemical-weapons program, but it was inactive and several years old by the time the Bush/Cheney era began. When the Republican administration insisted that Saddam had an active WMD program that Iraq might use to attack the West and/or share with al Qaeda, all of those arguments were brazenly untrue.
For the right that keeps misreading New York Times articles, a little common sense is in order – if U.S. troops had found WMD stockpiles, the Bush/Cheney administration would have said so. Indeed, they were desperate to do exactly that.
So yes Pre 1991 Iraq had a Chemcial weapons program but by the time we invaded it was inactive and several years old and i have shown before that Saddam was willing for the UN to investaige there Programs which Pro does not address.
Saddam helped fund terroist groups agaisnt The West
This is a running Theme in Pro's case which he says without Us Interventionism The Brutal Saddam would of funded terroirst groups to destroy us and he had WMBS which he would of used to nuke us as well and give to his terroist buddies.
I Would one again want to show Pro WHY its importent to look into why the Middle east hates us so much, its because as i shown by Miltary Interventionism. Simply minding our own bussiness and the promblems on what Saddam is doing whould not be a promblem only in a world where Amercia is the Worlds Policeman is it a problem but not in a Isolationist World and the consequences's are shown by 911 and the 1993 Bombing
Rebutal to the Rebutal of 911 and 1993
Pro claims that im Cherry picking and not looking at the bigger picture and then goes on to say how Saddam was finacing these terroists and they attacked us. However as i pointed out Saddam was not finacing terroists he was suppresing a certain relgious majoirty in the country which created some instabilty but he maintained the order better than we did. Plus i have also shown that If we had remained Isolationist than we would not have to be worried about what other countries think of us since we are not creating enemies over seas.
Pro Drops my concrete arugment agaisnt Interventionism in my "No Brainer" Section.
IN Tune with Pro's wishes i will be fighting his Arugments he brought up. So i will not be defending my Arugments for Isolationism this round. It is up to voters to decide if my arugments stand agaisnt Pro's rebutalls ( I think they do)
I Have shown that despite Pro saying that Interventionism will make a more orderley world i have shown that it does the exact opposite it creates more haterd agaisnt the USA which makes the World more Anti Amercian which makes more problems with us then if we just let them sort it out themselves there will be more peace in the world naturally. I have presented a viable model to show how the World can be a better place without war. I Have Shown how Interventionism causes more disorder in the country that gets Invaded and this in turn creates breeding grounds for terriosim agaisnt the Invader which can led to terrfying outcomes such as the 1993 Trade Center Bombings and the 911 Attacks. I Have shown how Constant Wars have led to the collapse of empires in the past and that amercia is following a simlar path and how Us Interventionism have burdned us with death of many amercians, have made familys lose there loved ones, and have given our soliders PTSD and have given us trillions of dollars in debt. I have also shown that Amercia one of the top prizes to show for us was our freedom and that has now been all but gone thanks to the War on Terror which was a result of US Interventioism.
For the Sake of a more Peacefull and great future world i hope voters see how Isolationism is in fact a better way than the CounterProductive, "War War War" Chant of Interventionism.
|Who won the debate:||-|