The Instigator
dullurd
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
DrAcula
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

Military interventionism is a poor tactic for making the world freer and safer.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,731 times Debate No: 239
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (23)

 

dullurd

Pro

First, to clearly define, by "military interventionism," I mean the tactic of sending large amounts of soldiers to a given country. I believe that special ops are warranted at times (read: for killing Osama and his ilk), but that whenever large amounts of soldiers are involved, it is highly probable if not certain that things will go poorly.

I'll go into more detail when I see the arguments my interlocutor puts forth, but here's a quick rundown of my beliefs.

Military interventionism essentially always plunges the invading army into guerilla warfare. The native fighters know their country's terrain and infrastructure far better than the invaders, and whereas the native fighters have easy access to resources, the invaders must be constantly concerned about their supply lines. All other things being equal, this shifts the odds heavily against the invaders and at least guarantees many injuries and deaths for the invading army.

Native sentiment regarding the invading country is unlikely to improve while the country is being occupied. Military occupation inevitably fosters resentment, and blunders by the occupying army (bombing the wrong buildings, not guarding weapons depots, being cruel and abusive to innocents) greatly amplify this resentment.

Historically, countries have been able to cast off repressive and inhumane policies only when when a substantial proportion of the population is not only supportive of change, but clamoring for it, and willing to risk much to achieve it. With this in mind, I submit that the best way to help countries like Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia is for the focus to be shifted from militarism to commerce and information. Give millions of computers with uncensored internet access to any repressed people of your choice, give them 20 or 30 years, and I'm certain you'll see a radically different political climate in that country.
DrAcula

Con

Military interventionism may seem like a poor tactic, but it's pretty much the only one. Like the military countries you mentioned. These countries pretty much stand strong on any issue, and aren't going to change, because of there religious backgrounds. That is why military intervention is needed if we truly want to change something. Diplomacy will barely get us anywhere.

Spec Ops is sometimes a good idea, but when those things are figured out, it'll make us look worse then we would just invading a country for "liberation,"

if the said countries were in, say, Europe, it'd be different, but because they're in the middle east, it's high unlikely that any peace talks would consistently work.
Debate Round No. 1
dullurd

Pro

Thanks for taking me up on this.

I think it's critically important to draw a distinction between the government and the citizenry. You said "These countries [that I mentioned] pretty much stand strong on any issue, and aren't going to change." If by 'countries' you mean 'governments,' then I agree with you. It's hard to dispute that most tyrannical, repressive governments are quite stubborn and unwilling to listen to competing points of view. However, citizens are quite different.

A good friend of mine who's an Arabic major in college spent last summer in Syria and the preceding summer in Jordan, and he found that the people he met were quite normal and reasonable. They all had an attitude of resignation regarding their tyrannical governments; they felt that their government's presence was an immutable fact of life, so they just accepted it. What I'm trying to argue is that by far the best way to make the Middle East freer and safer is to give the people a thirst for freedom, and to do that by exposing them to the culture and knowledge of the world via the internet.

How would this effect change, you might ask. Imagine a gay man living in a small Saudi Arabian village today. He's been told by everyone he meets, his friends, family and government, that homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death, so of course he covers it up. Then give him the internet. Even if he has largely convinced himself that he's straight and that being gay is wrong, of course he will find gay sites at some point. He will learn that in other countries, not only are gays free from the fear of execution, but are free to be open about it and are actively agitating for civil rights. Add up enough revelations of this sort and opposition to the government will be formidable and fierce.

As for your argument that military intervention is just a necessary evil at times, I have to agree, but only under very dire and specific circumstances, the likes of which we haven't seen during my lifetime ('84 onward). Perhaps I should have prefaced the debate resolution with "in today's world."

So to sum up, I wasn't advocating diplomacy as much as exporting information and culture. I'd like to add that economic sanctions are basically always a terrible idea; they hurt the citizens, not the government, and the sanctioning government gets the blame.
DrAcula

Con

yeah, sorry for the misconception, i meant governments.

And if a plan like your's was to work, it would require the help of the country's government. As much as the people would want it, the country may not want to deal with us, and may not want our views/culture imposed on there citizens. If in fact, it leads to protests, and violence, military intervention would be a must, for us to clean up our own mistake. It's a good idea, but ultimately, the government of the country would have to cooperate, and I just can't see that.
Debate Round No. 2
dullurd

Pro

This has been called a war of ideas, and rightly so. As has been shown in Iraq, in order to make "islamofascist" countries freer, we need to do far more than merely toppling the evil leader-du-jour. Why? Because once he's gone, there need to be better people to replace him, people who have popular support. Removing Saddam merely energized the more radical Iraqi citizens and neighboring radical groups like Al Qaeda, and a bloody mess ensued.

That's where my internet idea comes in. It doesn't have to be the internet; it's just that the internet is particularly well suited to spreading ideas. I brought it up because it's my own little pet theory. The bigger point is that the military definitely can't do it alone, and may very well be unnecessary, and ideally this would be the case. As for your point that their governments would need to be in favor of 'technologizing' their countries, I respectfully disagree. This could definitely be done subversively, and with the blistering pace at which technology is currently progressing, it's getting much easier every day.

If the notion of subverting these governments troubles you, you need to ask yourself how you expect any country to cast off its tyrannical leaders. Revolutions are intrinsically subversive because they involve conspiring against and working against the government. You don't seem to take issue with the points I made in my first argument; you basically agreed but argued that sometimes military interventionism is the only option. I agree that in vanishingly rare circumstances, intervention is warranted, but the debate resolution is whether or not it's a poor tactic, and I think I've made a strong case.
DrAcula

Con

I don't believe it's a poor tactic, it just has to be used in the right ways. If you're going to bring force, bring force, just don't use a paltry sum of soldiers to fight.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by smilingsoprano 9 years ago
smilingsoprano
First of all . . . ban Islam? ARE YOU CRAZY??
One fifth of the world's population is Muslim. There is NO WAY that banning such a widely practiced religion will reduce violent conflicts. Historically, banning religious worship of any kind is a bad idea. Look at the sectionalism and violence in pre-Elizabethan England. Even denying a religion access to a holy area has caused wars (the Crusades, any and all conflicts between Israel and Palestine).
Furthermore, the anti-freedom Muslims you're referencing are the extremists. Like the KKK. You cannot extrapolate their views to 20% of the world's population.
Finally, I would like to say that warfare has changed radically since WWII, and military intervention is NO LONGER a good option. Look at Vietnam and Iraq. The changing tactics have given us enemies that we cannot contact or negotiate with or fight head-on. At least with diplomacy we can meet face-to-face.
Oh, and the world is not any safer since our intervention in Iraq. Global terrorism has more than tripled since the occupation.
Posted by dullurd 9 years ago
dullurd
dude, ban Islam? Do you have any Muslim friends? Have you ever had a friendly conversation with one? Your worldview indicates to me that you probably haven't. You're pretty comfortable dehumanizing them, but let me assure you, they're just as human as we are. If people like me can give them knowledge before people like you bomb them or force them to abandon their religion Inquisition-style, you'll find that you're quite wrong.

I agree that we were right to intervene in WW2, but that's one of those extenuating circumstances I alluded to in my arguments. Also, that was state-to-state warfare, which is a far cry from the costly, unsuccessful, undeclared wars we've fought since then.
Posted by DrAcula 9 years ago
DrAcula
the problem isnt islam, it's islam fundamentalists....
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Well, the debate and the subject are two different issues

For example, the premise is CLEARLY wrong

WWII seals that deal

what if we hadnt "intervened" in Europe and Asia, and defeated the Axis powers?

I mean its a no brainer !

Now, maybe your arguments are more wordy and articulate, but youre still wrong

On Afgansitan and Iraq, how can you NOT say that the world is NOT safer that we are taking on the terrorists who attacked us here ?

We have not had one attack here since and have foiled numerous plots

It is a difficult thing for us to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, but the bottom line is we HAVE DONE SO now in Iraq as we have stuck it out long enough, and the Shiekhs are turing AGAINST their fellow muslims who are terrorists from other countries, and have only a desire to spread terror.

The Iraqis are realizing that living in a peaceful society makes alot more sense.

Afgan is also a challenge.

the bottom line is that the WEST IS IN A 100+ YEAR WAR WITH ISLAM, YES ISLAM, NOT TERROR

and we need to show the muslim world that they are being lied to and we and Israel are much more their friends than their lying leaders, who suppress them and keep them poor and ignorant, while enriching themselves.

If we do not AGRESSIVELY COMBAT ISLAM, and evetnually BAN IT, the cancer will continue to grow until you have things like we see in France and England.

Islam is INCOMPATABLE with FREEDOM, LIBERTY and RIGHTS

period.
Posted by willact723 9 years ago
willact723
The fact that someone voted for DrAcula proves that people don't vote based on who won the debate, it is focusing on whether they agree with military interventionism or not. That, people, is not the point of debate!!!!! Why do y'all bother?? Some people spend a lot of effort debating, to get a poorly constructed response in return! And then, when it is time to vote, it's just a public opinion poll of those on this site, not an unbiased look at who won. This is ridiculous, maybe i'm hopeing that things will change on this site eventually.

No offense is meant to DrAcula, i admire your beliefs and your willingness to debate, but in the debates i've seen, you have a problem with addressing the issues of the person to go first in the round. You simply skip their argument and state your reasoning, or just say you think they're wrong without elaborating. That is exactly how to lose a debate.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Rinaldanator 9 years ago
Rinaldanator
dullurdDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
dullurdDrAculaTied
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 Browncoat 9 years ago
Browncoat
dullurdDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JoeDSileo 9 years ago
JoeDSileo
dullurdDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by LoganD 9 years ago
LoganD
dullurdDrAculaTied
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 adamh 9 years ago
adamh
dullurdDrAculaTied
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 thisearthlyride 9 years ago
thisearthlyride
dullurdDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
dullurdDrAculaTied
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 smilingsoprano 9 years ago
smilingsoprano
dullurdDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
dullurdDrAculaTied
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