The Instigator
ReaganConservative
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
ComradeJon1
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

The Iraq War has been a success.

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: 2/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,459 times Debate No: 2625
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (26)
Votes (25)

 

ReaganConservative

Pro

The Iraq War has been a success. Plain and simple. To deny this statement, one would either have to be ignorant or find pleasure in disregarding the truth. Allow me to explain why this war is successful:

First and foremost, Saddam Hussein, a homicidal maniac who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people, is dead. Saddam's sons, Uday and Qusay, the ones who ran the rape and torture chambers, are dead. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. Abu Laith al-Libi, a top al Qaeda leader, is dead. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya relinquished his WMD's in response to force used in Iraq. Osama bin Laden has been hiding in a cave for the last 6-7 years, however that wasn't the case during the Clinton Administration. 3,100 families have been able to move back into their homes in Baghdad, due to the fact that Baghdad is now secure, as a result of the actions of the United States military and coalition forces. 80,000 Iraqis, mainly Sunnis, have teamed with American forces in the battle against extremists. Since Saddam Hussein's removal, Iraq has seen free elections, restoration of sovereignty, formation of a new government, ratification of a constitution, introduction of a sound currency, revival of oil production, newly established stock market, surge of new businesses, training of new police and military, rebuilding of roads, opening of schools, new fire stations, and an improved computer network. Per capita income has doubled since 2003. Al Qaeda is reduced to hit-and-run operations. Iran abandoned their WMD program in 2003, the year we invaded Iraq. And most importantly, in my opinion, we haven't been attacked on U.S. soil since 9/11. I encourage my opponent to make an attempt to prove me wrong. Let us keep this discussion civilized and refrain from ad hominem attacks because they are rather childish.
ComradeJon1

Con

Pardon my frank rebtual, but i dont have much time. The pure fact that makes Iraq NOT a success is that we havnt accomplished our goal, but rather, exacerbated the problem. You can catch as many dictators as youd like, but the fact remains: until you fix the problem you set out for, the war is a failure. Violence remains in Iraq. The Al Queda network (which was almost entirely destryoed in Afghanistan) is still living in Iraq. Sectarian issues and political violence that didnt exist before our involvment has become a reality.
Debate Round No. 1
ReaganConservative

Pro

If you didn't have a lot of time, then perhaps you should have ignored this debate and allowed someone else to participate.

Exacerbated the problem? Really? Let us take a look in our history books, shall we? Saddam Hussein slaughtered 400,000 Kurds, used poison gas against his own people, and routinely tortured his own citizens with electric shock and castration.

As for the WMD development. A clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses was found within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing chemical and biological weapons research. A prison lab complex possibly used in human testing biological weapons agents was found. Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home was found. New research on biological-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin aflatoxin were found. And documents and equipment that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment were found.

Saddam Hussein provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups. Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Zarqawi. Saddam aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers' Party. He hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel, including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization. He supported Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the family of Palestinian suicide bombers. And he supported other secular terrorist groups.

Saddam Hussein ran an oppressive regime in which his people were ruled by despotism. As I said previously, since Saddam's removal, the Iraqi people elected their own representatives and formed their own constitution. Of course violence remains in Iraq, violence remains in the United States of America as well. The fact of the matter is, violence in Iraq is down 60%, according to General David Petraeus. Political violence didn't exist before our invasion? Perhaps that's because if one were to speak out against the government, Saddam would have them executed in a second.

From what I can see, success in your eyes is when the Iraqi people are dancing in the streets and embracing their neighbors in peace and harmony. Reality check my friend, this is a brutal world, and there will always be violence. But you can't deny the fact that liberating 50 million people from despotism, providing the option of democracy, removing top terrorist leaders, bringing violence down, securing an al Qaeda stronghold, and building up Iraqi security forces are successes.

My opponent failed to prove any of my points incorrect. With that being said, I encourage him to engage in a more factually based approach, rather than stating his opinion of what he "thinks." Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?
ComradeJon1

Con

First of all, i see you dont know the difference between facts and opinions. When i say "al queda still operates in Iraq" that is not an opinion, but rather, a fact. This may be a difficult concept to comprehend for someone who calls themselves "ReaganConservative".

Second, All you have proven is that Saddam Hussein wasnt a good person. Nobodys here to debate you on that. The statment you put out was about the Iraq war as a whole. If you wanted to debate about Saddam, that should have been the topic. If you had read my short but concise opening, youd understand that i wasnt attempting to disprove Saddam's evil. Obviously, understanding logic is outside your capability. So ill go slowly for you:

saddam = bad

stopping saddam = good

agreed, but:

staying in the war for over 3 years more than expected = bad

not stopping al queda (the ones responsible for 9/11) = bad

losing almost 6 times the expected casualties = bad

losing most major coalition support = bad

establishing a terribley ineffective gov't to replace saddam = bad

establishing huge anti-american global sentiment = bad

staying in a war after a clear majority (about 70%) opposed = bad

vetoing congressional bills to limit the troop activity after the previous issue had already been established = bad

spending triple the expected amount in the 1st 2 years alone = bad

not providing adequate body armor to our brave men and women = bad

being so embarrased that our secretary of defense had to resign = good! (to be perfectly honest)

Im forgetting alot, but this should be sufficient to at least negate the topic you posted.

and finally, my appologies to the guy who didnt get to debate. I just saw the topic and thought it was pretty funny that a guy named ReaganConservative was debating it. Good luck to all though.
Debate Round No. 2
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vikuta 8 years ago
Vikuta
I wonder if reaganconservative remembers operation ajax.
Posted by ReaganConservative 8 years ago
ReaganConservative
No, I believe he knew his actions would affect the American people, such as his economic policies which created 20 million new jobs, his tax cuts that increased business investment and fueld economic growth, 96 continuous months of economic growth, all the while crushing the Soviet Union and saving the United States from nuclear holocaust.

Aside from that, Bush met with the Taliban in Texas? Really? You sure? Please. Enough of that nonsense. I guess Bush-Derangement Syndrome (BDS) really does exist. Truly pathetic, indeed. So, we didn't have to get involved in the Iran-Iraq war? Really? You sure? Remember the American hostages that were held for 444 days? Remember that? Saddam started gassing his own people around 1988. We tilted towards him around 1982-1984.

I never labeled you as "stupid." Remember, I'm not a liberal, therefore I don't resort to ad hominem attacks. I actually try to engage in a rational debate. I simply said you lacked knowledge in history. That's a fair assessment, considering you've posted some prevarication.

Now where's that history book? I know you have it somewhere...
Posted by left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Actually I do remember FDR having allied the Soveits during WW2, and remeber Stalin didn't do anything to his people yet. So in all do respects he wasn't the bad guy yet. Saddam on the other hand made it his goal to exterminate anyother religous sect who didn't agree with his veiws. Very much like Hitler. We did not have to get in on the Iran-Iraq wars, but we did because Reagan, Bush (first), and rumsfeld all spoke highly about Saddam. At the time, he loved us. And yes even though he was killing his own people in the process, we still sold him weapons. Don't mark me a stupid leftist. I don't think your stupid just because you support Reagan.

there was no tilting. We sold him weapons. Thats taking sides. Bush (current) met with the Taliban in Texas to discuss business. He didn't tilt, did he? I do understand how the world works and it seems to me that when countries, not just America, take sides with a hostile country it only brings bad things to past. That my friend, is how the world works.
I don't blame America first. I blame the "leaders" who make the desicions that end up hurting us. (America and her people)
But I guess Reagan never really understood that his actions would affect the American People did he?
Posted by ReaganConservative 8 years ago
ReaganConservative
Do us a favor and try reading a history book and understanding how the world works, ok? We tilted towards Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. Khomeini was the bigger threat at the time. Saddam was the lesser of two evils. That's the world we live in. Remember when FDR allied with Stalin and called him "Uncle Joe" during WW2? Remember when we tilted towards the Taliban because the Soviet Union was the bigger threat and we were enforcing containment to help prevent the spread of communism? You're "blame America first" approach just shows your lack of history. I understand though, you're a leftist.
Posted by left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Yeah Saddam killed 400,000 people...with the gas we sold him. Here is a picture of Donald Rumsefeld shaking hands with Saddam to confirm the deal : http://www.gwu.edu...

We liked Saddam (a known vicous dictator) and gave him tons of weapons when it meant he was going to attack Iran, but why is it when he uses it on his own people we are shocked?
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
Sure the US "gave" Iraq it's oil fields back after the invasion. Now the occupied nation is going to "give" American oil companies the lion's share of the contracts. As I have mentioned previously, America is more interested in control of Middle Eastern oil than in consumption of it. With American oil companies in control, they can sell their products to anyone, not just the people of the United States. America also wants this oil in the event of a large scale conflict.
Posted by ReaganConservative 9 years ago
ReaganConservative
You're right, because this entire ordeal is about OIL. I hope you are aware that Iraq supplies only 5% of America's oil. Venezuela, Canada, and Saudi Arabia supply most of America's oil. Once again, you failed to acknowledge that we gave back Iraq's oil fields right after our initial invasion. I'm going to keep repeating this until you address this fact.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
...and the contracts for the oil companies are going to be announced next month, while Iraq is still under US military occupation. Will you be surprised when the best contracts are awarded to American oil companies? I am not critical of success, I am critical of exploitation, which, unfortunately, is tied together the oil companies' success in this case. Iraq's oil should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people first. "Oh, it's not fair that they are sitting on this pool of oil and our companies aren't profiting off of it. Let's start a war..."
Posted by ReaganConservative 9 years ago
ReaganConservative
You still failed to acknowledge the blatant fact that we gave the oil fields back to Iraq right after our initial invasion. So, you have a problem with businesses making money? You sound like all the other whining leftists who want handouts from the government and criticize others for being successful. "Oh, it's not fair that they have money and I don't!!" Just listen to yourself. So you want to punish the companies that create jobs and serve as the most productive members of the economy? Marxism is not a viable solution. The sooner you realize that, the better.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
People think that this war is for the benefit of the American people. It isn't. It is to benefit American oil companies and their associates. It doesn't matter who consumes the oil, the corporations make money either way. Control of the oil fields is also in keeping with America's grand strategy of global hegemony. That's why high gas prices in America are irrelevant.

The Gulf war's overt aim was to prevent Hussein from controlling ALL of the Middle East's oil.. The US government couldn't possibly get away with simply taking Iraq's oil. It's much easier to let American oil companies take a controlling interest.
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Duron 8 years ago
Duron
ReaganConservativeComradeJon1Tied
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 griffinisright 8 years ago
griffinisright
ReaganConservativeComradeJon1Tied
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 left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
ReaganConservativeComradeJon1Tied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
ReaganConservativeComradeJon1Tied
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 Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
ReaganConservativeComradeJon1Tied
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 bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
ReaganConservativeComradeJon1Tied
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 Rinaldanator 9 years ago
Rinaldanator
ReaganConservativeComradeJon1Tied
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 kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
ReaganConservativeComradeJon1Tied
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 polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
ReaganConservativeComradeJon1Tied
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 lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
ReaganConservativeComradeJon1Tied
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