The Instigator
ANSmith
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
Captain.America
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

McCain is running for Bush's 3rd term, specifically with war in Iraq.

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  
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: 8/27/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,237 times Debate No: 5162
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

ANSmith

Pro

Clearly this debate is centered around the concept that John McCain is running for Bush's third term. Since the beginning, McCain's tactics and promises for the future (specifically in Iraq) are mostly parallel to those of the current Pres. George W. Bush. As I will make apparent in the rest of the arguement.

John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. John McCain doesn't think that 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. And in 2008, he still thinks it's okay when women don't earn equal pay for equal work. (Clinton's Speech delivered at DNC)

In an interview with John McCain...

Mediatior: "Pres. Bush has talked about us staying in Iraq for 50 years..."

McCain: "Maybe 100. We've been in Japan for, what, 6 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so, that'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. And it's fine with me, I would hope it would be fine with you."

With war comes loss and hard times. A country is going to experience that with any war, that's not what I'm saying. But we have been in Iraq for almost 7 years now. There have been no weapons of mass destruction that Bush says were there. No Osama bin laden. Yes, we captured and killed Hussein. And we are rebuilding Iraq. However, we have become so obsessed with the well being of Iraq that we are loosing sight of what is happening here at home. Gas prices are sky-rocketing, the cost of grain is going up, people are loosing their jobs, health insurance is unaffordable, and the economy is plummeting.

The American government is so OCD about Iraq, and in an interview with Michael Scheuer, author of 'Marching towards Hell', on Fox News. He stated:

"Mr. McCain is very confident, but he's clueless...he continues to tell Americans that these people are Islamo Fascists and they hate us because of our freedoms and they hate us because of our liberties. What they hate us for is the unusually verialent strain of obsessive compulsive disorder that's present in the American governing class, and that's called interventionism. That's what the cause of this war is, and Mr. McCain...doesn't have that idea."

Now I understand that some people in Iraq want the change, but they are the minority. And just like any citizen of a country, they are fighting back. I put it on the same wavelength as Russia invading the USA and proceeding to turn everything around towards Communism. Now, some Americans may want the change, but as citizens of a country we are not going to just sit back, let another country invade ours, and allow them to intervene with the way things are done here towards what they think is better. We will fight. And any American you ask would say the same thing. Now, granted our way of democracy IS better than the current government over there. But you have to look at it from their standpoint. How would you feel if this was happening to you. But I'm getting off topic.

McCain stated on Jan 18, 2008 in Florence that "there's gonna be more wars" and that "we're in a big struggle that's going to last the rest of the century." Why?! This country is going downhill as it is. And instead of a president telling us that "there's going to be more wars", why not try and fix the USA's standings with the rest of the world?! Try to repair the damage that has been done to our image with the rest of the world?! Repair the damage that has been done at home and get America back on it's feet?! Why does a President have to say that "there's going to be more wars" instead of promising hope for the future of us, our children and generations to come!? As a president, his job is to help get us out of the struggle, it's not going to resolve itself. So as a man running for leader of our country, how can he sit there and say that the struggle will last for the rest of this century. You're running for president, what are you going to do to change that!?

"You get John McCain in the White House, and I do believe we will be at war with Iran." -- Pat Buchanan, Political Analyst, MSNBC

"Bomb Iran. Bomb. Bomb. Bomb" --John McCain interview (date unknown)

In an interview with Scott Ritter about invading Iran:

"If we start bombing Iran, I'm telling you right now, it's not going to work. We're not going to achieve decapitation, regime change, all that. What will happen is the Iranians will respond, and we will feel the pain instantaneously, which will prompt the Bush administration to phase two, which will have to be boots on the ground. And we will put boots on the ground, we will surge a couple of divisions in, probably through Azerbaijan, down the Caspian Sea coast, in an effort to push the regime over. And when they don't push over, we now have 40,000 troops trapped. We have now reached the definition of significant numbers of U.S. troops in harm's way, and there is no reserve to pull them out! There's no more cavalry to come riding to the rescue. And at that point in time, my concern is that we will use nuclear weapons to break the backbone of Iranian resistance, and it may not work.

But what it will do is this: it will unleash the nuclear genie. And so for all those Americans out there tonight who say, 'You know what - taking on Iran is a good thing.' I just told you if we take on Iran, we're gonna use nuclear weapons. And if we use nuclear weapons, the genie ain't going back in the bottle, until an American city is taken out by an Islamic weapon in retaliation. So, tell me, you want to go to war with Iran. Pick your city. Pick your city. Tell me which one you want gone. Seattle? L.A.? Boston? New York? Miami. Pick one. Cause at least one's going. And that's something we should all think about before we march down this path of insanity that George Bush has us headed on."

Faiza Al-Aliji, a civil engineer, said this in response to the war in Iraq:

"This is the difference between the people living in Iraq and the people living in USA. When I'm listening to President Bush when he's talking or the people who are supporting him I just say "Oh my God! they are still living in their dreams and illusions!" They are talking in something of their dreams, not on the ground. Why don't they listen to the Iraqi people? They are trying to force the Iraqi people to think the way they want. And this is the wrong way."

In a discussion with the leaders of Iraq:

"The truth is, as the shiek said before me, there is only one problem in Iraq that you all know. And that is the occupation, it's the source of all the problems that's happening in Iraq. We want the Americans to leave now. We think that if they leave now, Iraqis will fix their internal problems themselves. We think that the present, or American occupation now is causing more sectarian problems."

We need to give Iraq THEIR country back, it's not our place to tell them how to live and what to do. Since when did the American government decide that we are such a great nation that we now have the power to tell other countries how to live? What type of government to have? Since when did we decide not to listen to the citizens of the country, but do what we want, regardless of others thoughts. Democracy - a government BY THE PEOPLE. So why are we not listening to THE PEOPLE?! This is not the American way of doing things, this is the Bush way and the McCain way...
Captain.America

Con

I negate, Senator McCain is not running for Bush's third term.

I will make 3 main points in this round:

P1: "John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. John McCain doesn't think that 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. And in 2008, he still thinks it's okay when women don't earn equal pay for equal work. (Clinton's Speech delivered at DNC)"

Am I arguing with Hil or Smith here?

Anyway, can you point to me a specific time where he said he thinks sexism is alright? Senator McCain recognizes the healthcare crisis and has stated

"Unlike the Democrats, I'm going to preserve that quality of health care, and at the same time stop the inflation & the skyrocketing costs of health care. And there's a couple of principles:To make the recipient of the health insurance much more responsible in health-care costs."
To address wellness & fitness.
To give every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit so they can go anyplace in America to acquire the health insurance policy that best suits their needs. zed the healthcare crisis, and has said that he will give tax breaks to families that can't afford healthcare so the families can buy it for themselves."

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org...

On Social Security: John McCain supports "supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts--but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept."

Not privatizing, Smith.

P2: 100 years in Iraq, WMDs, etc.

First off, we still have bases in Germany and South Korea. We'll most likely always have some sort of presence there, whether you like it or not. Senator McCain wants to get out as soon as you do, but not without the Iraqi defense force being able to hold its own.

Secondly, your comparison to Russia invading us is completely off. We invaded Iraq because our best sources at the time believed there was WMDs in Iraq. Many Republicans and Democrats agreed on that point. Also, if there were no WMDs in Iraq, what do you make of the yellowcake uranium (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...) that was removed from Iraq not too long ago? Just to be fair, that link is from MSNBC, so it's not right-wing propaganda.

As for the Bomb Iran thing, he was JOKING. If Iran did pose an imminent threat, yes, we would invade. Would McCain just bomb them for the hell of it? Of course not.

Give me some sources, polls. Do you seriously think the Iraqi people are confident enough in their own security forces that they want us out?

As for our standing in the world, I guess abortion doesn't fit into that argument, considering much of Europe is much more strict on abortion than us.

Captain America
Debate Round No. 1
ANSmith

Pro

P1. "Give me some sources, polls. Do you seriously think the Iraqi people are confident enough in their own security forces that they want us out?"

--Yes I do. According to (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org...):

"A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want U.S.-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the United States made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten...

A large majority of Iraqis—71%—say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like U.S.-led forces withdrawn "within six months," while another 34 percent opt for "gradually withdraw[ing] U.S.-led forces according to a one-year timeline." Twenty percent favor a two-year timeline and just 9 percent favor "only reduc[ing] U.S.-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq."

Fifty-seven percent of Sunnis favor withdrawal in six months, with another 34 percent favoring it within a year. Shias are more evenly divided between six months (36%) and a year (38%). Few Shias favor two years (20%) or an open-ended commitment (5%). Only a third of Kurds favor withdrawal within a year or less, but two-thirds favor withdrawal within two years or less (11% six months, 24% one year, 34% two years). Thirty-one percent of Kurds favor an open-ended commitment."

**Please make note off all the tables and diagrams to the left of the article.

P2: "On Social Security: John McCain supports "supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts--but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept."

Not privatizing, Smith."

--According to (http://answers.yahoo.com...):

Privatized Social Security is defined as what happens when income earners will be able to keep all of or a portion of the money that is withheld from their paychecks that goes towards social security. With some kind of regulation that requires the money to be invested in various kinds of accounts.

you said yourself that McCain want personal accounts. That's privatizing, Captain.

P3. "Anyway, can you point to me a specific time where he said he thinks sexism is alright?"

According to (http://jezebel.com...):

"When [John McCain] failed to wow them with his "drill here and drill now" energy plan, or his tax plan or his plan to be out of Iraq for sure by 2013, he tried a different strategy. He suggested to Cindy and the audience that she should compete in the Miss Buffalo Chip contest. What's so bad about that?

Miss Buffalo Chip isn't a beauty contest in the traditional sense — it's a relatively debauched topless (and sometimes bottomless) multiday contest where women dance, jiggle and reportedly even perform blow jobs on bananas for the titillation of the spectators. And John McCain offered up his 54-year-old wife as a contestant."

Sexist much?

P4. "As for our standing in the world, I guess abortion doesn't fit into that argument, considering much of Europe is much more strict on abortion than us."

--Ummmm. random at all?!
Captain.America

Con

Captain.America forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ANSmith

Pro

Considering my opponent forfeited this round, I have nothing else to argue against, unless my opponent decides to post another argument in the upcoming round.
Captain.America

Con

Captain.America forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
i just wanted to point out that the republicans hate McCain. they don't want him to be president because he's too liberal
Posted by jurist24 9 years ago
jurist24
Ragnar! John Adams' quote is not controlling law, absent its gratuitous hat-tip in Marbury.

Ya know what is controlling law? The Constitution. Ya know what it says? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

She said, "[O]utlined as a government by the people." The above text comports with that notion. Understand, please, that you and I are just arguing semantics over philosophical notions, though.
Posted by Captain.America 9 years ago
Captain.America
I forgot to put P3 on the Bomb Iran paragraph.

I feel really stupid...
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"hat's true, but our system of government was outlined as a government by the people"

Not true. "A government of laws, and not of men." - John Adams

It is, in short, specifically designed to be a government NOT by the people. It is a government to protect you from the people, i.e. the mob. It may not work terribly well at that:

"The Constitution poses no threat to our current form of government."

-Joseph Sobran

But the fact remains it was "outlined" to protect individuals FROM the "people." That's what the Bill of Rights means, even though the government violates it every day.
Posted by water123 9 years ago
water123
i suport you now.

you convinced me.
Posted by ANSmith 9 years ago
ANSmith
that's true, but our system of government was outlined as a government by the people. That's what I meant by the American way.

and yes, everybody has their beliefs depending on thier party. you are right, water123, so the Iraqis should be free to have their own beliefs.

and bush never said that Osama was in Iraq, he did in the beginning, but my point in bring Osama up is that we still have not found him.
Posted by water123 9 years ago
water123
well everybody has their beliefs depending their party.am i rite?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Wait, when did Bush claim Osama was in Iraq...?

Democracy, by the way, is not the American Way. It has a lot more to do with the French way to be honest.
Posted by ANSmith 9 years ago
ANSmith
okay, but does that give us the right to control everything about their country? you say without troops in iraq, we would be speaking their language, but with troops in Iraq, THEY are being forced to think the way we want them to. It's bad for us to speak their language, but it's okay to control everything about them?! I think not...
Posted by water123 9 years ago
water123
withoutntroops in iraq we would problaby would be talking
their language!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
ANSmithCaptain.AmericaTied
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 advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
ANSmithCaptain.AmericaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
ANSmithCaptain.AmericaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jurist24 9 years ago
jurist24
ANSmithCaptain.AmericaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JTSmith 9 years ago
JTSmith
ANSmithCaptain.AmericaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ANSmith 9 years ago
ANSmith
ANSmithCaptain.AmericaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70