The Instigator
gkoz23
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Iraq and Afghanistan were wars that the US should never have started

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,112 times Debate No: 46166
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

gkoz23

Pro

These wars have costs us hundreds of billions of dollars and there was nothing accomplished by them. First off, we lied about the reasons we went to war in Iraq. We were told it was because of Al Queda and WMDs in Iraq. These reasons were lies. The war in Afghanistan was fought for money reasons not cause Al Queda was a legitimate threat to us. If we really wanted to beat a terrorist group in Afghanistan we could destroy them. We were involved in these wars because America is run by corporations and these corporations profit from war.
imabench

Con

"First off, we lied about the reasons we went to war in Iraq. We were told it was because of Al Queda and WMDs in Iraq. These reasons were lies"

That wasnt the only reason we invaded Iraq though. Iraq was also invaded because Saddam Hussein had committed terrible violations of human rights, had a history of using chemical weapons both against his enemies and his own people, he had an extensive history of starting wars in the Middle East (a very unstable region to begin with), was a tremendous enemy of Israel, and was a constant security threat to oil supplies that come out of the Middle East. The claim that he had weapons of mass destruction didnt pan out sure, but we still had plenty of other reasons to invade Iraq other then just the belief that he had WMD's.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www2.gwu.edu...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.history.com...
http://www.deseretnews.com...



"The war in Afghanistan was fought for money reasons not cause Al Queda was a legitimate threat to us"

Um, they kind of were dude. Al-Qaeda demonstrated its potential with the 9/11 attacks, and even before that they had an extensive history of attacking US forces and blowing up US embassies.

http://www.nbcnews.com...




"We were involved in these wars because America is run by corporations and these corporations profit from war."

Thats just a stupid excuse that idiots use to justify their conspiracy theories.
Debate Round No. 1
gkoz23

Pro

About the war in Iraq- If we went to war with every country that violated human rights we would be in a ton of wars. All over the world human rights are violated and the U.S. does little or nothing to stop this. If the U.S. wants to intervene in a place where there are human rights being violated I don't have a big problem with that. More countries should start being the policemen of the world though. We have been the policemen of the world for too long now and are too far in debt to keep spending all this money on foreign defense and aid. More countries need to pitch in and start helping. Back to the issue of the US intervening when human rights are violated. Why didn't we intervene in Rwanda where there has been 500,000 to 1,000,000 people killed? It's because there is nothing to gain economically there. You even said it yourself a reason we invaded Iraq was because of oil. We get most of our imported oil from Canada actually. In 2012 the US produced 39% of its own oil, got 20% from Latin America, 15% from Canada, and only 13% from the Persian Gulf. So as you see we are not really that dependent on the middle east for oil. Before Iraq Western oil companies could not get oil out of Iraq but after the war the big oil companies were in there. By the way we use chemical weapons on our own people and enemies too. Just read this article- http://www.policymic.com...
So as you can see we do the things Hussein did, we just hardly hear about because it is covered up by the media, which is basically the government's propaganda machine. We also lied about the WMDs to make it seem like Iraq was a threat to America where in reality it posed little threat if any. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told us we know that Iraq has WMDs which was a complete lie.

About the war in Afghanistan- 9/11 was an inside job done by the U.S government. The same government that staged gulf of tonkin to get us into vietnam. Most wars start with lies and this is just another case of this. There is a big amount of evidence to support that 9/11 was done by the government. The government claimed we just found a vein of lithium a couple years ago worth a trillion dollars. We most likely knew about this before the war started. Lithium is used in phones, computers, and electric cars. I'm sure that was a big reason we went there. Al Queda did 9/11, but the US did either let 9/11 happen or played a part in creating the event. You think if we went to war with Al Queda we could easily defeat them too. We are still there and why you ask? Because big corporation profit from war. This leads to my next point that America is run by corporations. The supreme courts ruled that Corporations now have the same rights as citizens and it has also ruled that money equals speech. Our political system is also based on bribery where corporations pay our democrats and republicans to do what they want. Congressmen actually gain more money back on their stocks than Warren Buffet does because these congressmen know what is going to happen with the stocks because they are best buds with the corporations. One more example is Tesla Motors, a growing electric car company that can't sell without restrictions in all 50 states. This seems like communism not capitalism to me. The reason we did this is because Tesla would hurt the big oil and car companies.
imabench

Con

"All over the world human rights are violated and the U.S. does little or nothing to stop this"

Cause we've learned pretty quick we dont have the resources to do so.



"You even said it yourself a reason we invaded Iraq was because of oil."

Yeah it was A reason though, not the only reason though.



"By the way we use chemical weapons on our own people and enemies too. Just read this article- http://www.policymic.com...;

Firing Tear Gas on Occupy Wall Street protestors in 2011 isnt the equivalent of dropping chemical warfare bombs on a city genius.....




"So as you can see we do the things Hussein did, we just hardly hear about because it is covered up by the media, which is basically the government's propaganda machine."

Ah, I didnt realize you were a complete moron.






"About the war in Afghanistan- 9/11 was an inside job done by the U.S government"

Ok now I dont even think the words 'complete moron' adequately describes you at this point.






"One more example is Tesla Motors, a growing electric car company that can't sell without restrictions in all 50 states. This seems like communism not capitalism to me. The reason we did this is because Tesla would hurt the big oil and car companies."

Ok youve made it abundantly clear now that you have literally no idea what youre talking about. Ill just save everyone some time and ask the voters to vote con since its pretty clear this debate isnt going to get any better.
Debate Round No. 2
gkoz23

Pro

About the war in Iraq and chemical weapons- We did drop bombs on a city. We dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing 200,000 civilians. We also dropped chemicals in Vietnam which killed 400,000 people, caused 500,000 babies to be born with birth defects, and caused two million to get cancer. There are many other times where we used chemical weapons too but those are some big ones. We can use chemical weapons and get away with it because we are the top dog. But if another country uses it we go to war with them. The big reason we went to war with Iraq was because Hussein used chemical weapons. Well in 1988 the CIA helped Hussein to massacre Iranians and Kurds with chemical weapons. So to say we went to war over the use of chemical weapons is baloney because we have a big history of using them ourselves. And as I said in my last argument we never hear much about these things because mainstream media won't talk about them because if they do they will be on bad terms with the government which will make them less money. If you don't get special perks and access from the government then you won't make money.

About the war in Afghanistan- I think the government played a part in 9/11 happening. We went to war in Afghanistan because of money, I will copy and paste an argument from a different debate I had as evidence to this.

What makes me think this is a majority of the wars American has been in in the past 130 years has been over lies. Usually an event is done before a war is started to sway the public's opinion to support the war. Examples of us lying to go to war are War with Spain in 1898 with the blowing up of the USS Maine, World World One with the sinking of the Lusitania, Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and Iraq with Al Qaeda and WMDs. Many people including myself also think that we let Pearl Harbor happen to get us into World War Two. Our country does say lets start a war with other countries because there is money to be made at war. Many people profit from war including corporations which pretty much run America. We just found a vein of lithium in Afghanistan worth a trillion dollars too. The government clearly played a part in 9/11 to get us to go to war in Afghanistan because of money. Also there are so many things that happened during, before, and after 9/11 that make no sense.All those lies I mentioned to get into wars were factual. Robert McNamara who was the Secretary of Defense when the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred admitted that the event was a lie and was done to justify going to war. It is confirmed that the government and/or the media lied about the blowing up of the USS Maine to get us into war with Spain and lied about the sinking of the Lusitania to get us into World War One. The government also told us there were WMDs in Iraq and Al Qaeda was associated with Iraq. This was another confirmed lie. So you cannot argue that the U.S. has gone to war on multiple occasions over lie. The government is willing to kill their own people to go to war too. A plan called operation northwoods was proposed to JFK in 1962 by the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff. This plan was to carry out acts of terrorism on US citizens by the government and make it look like Cuba did it to justify a war with Cuba. JFK, however, rejected this plan. So do not call me crazy for saying the U.S would kill its own people and lie to go to war because operation northwoods proves this wrong. Again this is a fact you cannot dispute. Another fact: the US government received 40 warnings that Bin Laden wanted to fly plains into buildings in New York in 2001 before 9/11 even happened. Another fact: Passports of the terrorists which were on the planes that flew into the WTC were found, but the black boxes of only one of the four planes that crashed that day was in good enough shape for us to supposedly listen too. Black boxes are suppose to withstand the most intense conditions but a passport survived when a majority of the black boxes didn't. That sounds messed up to me Another fact: a skyscraper has never fallen due to fire except with the WTC. According to the 9/11 report the buildings fell because of fire. Jet Fuel burning or a normal fire cannot melt steel and cannot bring a skyscraper down. To take it a step further WTC 7 fell solely because of fire. There are many instances in history where buildings have burned out but their structure remains in tact. My proposal is controlled demolition was used. The way the buildings fell was just liked a building would if it was blown up by controlled demolition. Another Fact: building 7 fell at the rate of gravity according to the 9/11 commission report. According to Jesse Ventura who was part of the navy seals and was part of the underwater demolition team in the navy said this goes against the laws of physics. When the building fell there had to be some resistance there. There is so much more to it by I will leave it at that. If you look into 9/11 and discover the information the government and mainstream media don't want you to see, it becomes very obvious this was a conspiracy.

So as you can see most wars start because of lies. Most wars are fought because of corporations, which run America. In my last argument I posted a factual story about Tesla Motors, an electric car company on the rise, not being able to sell in all 50 states without restrictions. I thought in America you could sell freely whatever you wanted when it comes to a business. But this doesn't apply to Tesla because Tesla would hurt and threaten the big car and oil companies of America. Also, when we have to make up stories, events, and lie about why we are going to war then we obviously don't have legitimate reasons to go to war. Why are these wars taking so long too. You figure we could annihilate Al Qaeda and Iraq pretty quickly if we wanted to. But yet, we fight these wars for years on end because corporations profit from war. War should be a last resort, something we do if our country is in huge danger by someone else. But we have turned war into a way for companies to profit.
imabench

Con

"About the war in Iraq and chemical weapons- We did drop bombs on a city. We dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing 200,000 civilians"

Ok, now please point out on a US map where the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are.

Once you figure out you cant do that, then you will see why its beyond stupid to claim that the US bombed its own people like Saddam did in Iraq by bringing up stuff that happened in WWII




"The big reason we went to war with Iraq was because Hussein used chemical weapons."

So you concede it can be justified to go to war in Iraq, thank you.




"About the war in Afghanistan- I think the government played a part in 9/11 happening. "

And thats because you have the intelligence of a dead raccoon.





" If you look into 9/11 and discover the information the government and mainstream media don't want you to see, it becomes very obvious this was a conspiracy."

Except it isnt, you and every other dumb conspiracy theorist simply pretend that its information that is trying to be covered up and assume a conspiracy is afoot because youre a complete idiot.




"Most wars are fought because of corporations"

Corporations have been around for maybe 100-150 years tops, if most wars were fought because of corporations then there would have been very few cases of wars being fought prior to the 1800's, which is a horrendously false assumption to make since prior to 1800, there was ALWAYS wars going on.




"I posted a factual story about Tesla Motors, an electric car company on the rise, not being able to sell in all 50 states without restrictions"

I know that the 6 brain cells you do have must be working as hard as they can to try to make sense of the world, but the fact is that ALL CAR COMPANIES FACE RESTRICTIONS IDIOT. Seatbelt laws, mpg mandates, fuel efficiency mandates, safety requirements, these are things that ALL car companies have to comply with to be able to seel cars in the US, its not just Tesla Motors you imbecile.



I highly advise everyone to vote con since pro is clearly an idiot who has no functioning conception of how the world actually works.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
I think he is referring to the link you posted trying to prove the US uses chemical weapons. One if it's failed examples was depleted uranium.
Posted by gkoz23 3 years ago
gkoz23
I never said anything about it though
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
The tank buster ammunition IS the depleted uranium. What did you think we had little DU guns that just shot out radioactive goo at civilians?
Posted by gkoz23 3 years ago
gkoz23
I never said anything about tank buster ammunition
Posted by beetle1944 3 years ago
beetle1944
We were in these wars because america was the world superpower by far at the time. The atomic bombs we used in japan were for a quick and decisive victory to end the terrible bloodshed from both nations. Before the chemical weapons ban(http://www.un.org...) we used them to try to end the wars faster.
This website said "As a result of public outrage, the Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the use of chemical weapons in warfare, was signed in 1925. While a welcome step, the Protocol had a number of significant shortcomings, including the fact that it did not prohibit the development, production or stockpiling of chemical weapons. Also problematic was the fact that many States that ratified the Protocol reserved the right to use prohibited weapons against States that were not party to the Protocol or as retaliation in kind if chemical weapons were used against them. Poison gasses were used during World War II in Nazi concentration camps and in Asia, although chemical weapons were not used on European battlefields." that was paragraph two on the website.
So when others used chemical weapons we could use them up until the 1990's. Source http://www.un.org... same as the last one. That is when countries agreed to stop and actually uphold this new rule. When we used the depleted uranium I believe you said we used that as tank buster ammunition source http://www.theguardian.com.... Boom I just schooled gkoz23. Dude when you go up against other people make sure you have ALL OF THE FACTS not just the ones that uphold your opinion.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
You really should re-challenge me to that gulf of Tonkin debate.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Should be interesting.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Haha XD gkoz23, prepare yourself.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Iraq and Afghanistan are countries, not wars. Not to mention, we didn't start the wars, we just got involved like we usually do.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
gkoz23imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Read everyone else's Reasons.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
gkoz23imabenchTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
gkoz23imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments regarding "Iraq" and "Afghanistan" wars were far better than Pro's explanation. Also Con's refutation was better compared to Pro. Con's arguments were better sourced than Pro. Also Con's formatting made easy and interesting to read. Thus these areas are clearly won by Con. Conduct to Pro as Con made Personal attack directly to his opponent.
Vote Placed by MrVan 3 years ago
MrVan
gkoz23imabenchTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments and spelling were better than Pro's, but he looses conduct for resorting to personal attacks against his opponent. Pro made numerous grammatical errors, and only provided one source.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
gkoz23imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro because Con's tone was degrading, although I completely understand why. Pro writes like a 3rd grader, so I'm giving spelling and grammar to Con. Pro had the burden of proof yet did not prove anything or provide any sources. The one source he provided seemed unreliable and biased and did not help his argument much. Con provided a lot of sources. Con made no arguments, but he did refute a lot of Pro's statements adequately enough to show that the wars SHOULD have started.