The Instigator
aresrat
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

The United States going into Iraq and Afghanistan, and starting the War On Terrorism

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,033 times Debate No: 20796
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

aresrat

Con

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the War On Terror are a complete waste of American time, money, and lives. We were attacked by one group, not two nations. We also have no business poking our noses in the problems of another country when we have our own problems on the homefront.
ConservativePolitico

Pro

I will be debating the resolution that:

"The war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the War On Terror are a complete waste of American time, money, and lives."

Since Con is making these claims the burden of proof falls on him, however I am going to start the debate.

Why we invaded Iraq and the subsequent War on Terror:

9/11

First of all everyone knows about 9/11. This is the event that launced the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. But why? Like my opponent points out we were attacked by "one group" but that one group was a powerful and deep rooted group that had influence and friends all over the Middle East.

After 9/11 the United States had to act, you cannot take the death of 3,000 innocent lives lying down and action was demanded.

So with action needed and only "one group" to attack where do you start?

=====================================================================================


Iraq

We invaded Iraq on two premises:

Weapons of Mass Destruction

and

Links to al-Qaeda

a) WMDs

There was a strong concensus amongst Western leaders that Iraq planned to obtain or already had weapons of mass destruction at their disposal and was a sentiment shared by the US, France and Britain in the late 90's. When we invaded Iraq in 2003 there was no evidence of nuclear weapons which caused everyone to believe that there were no WMDs whatsoever but this is not the case. Since 2003 over 500 chemical WMDs were discovered in Iraq bolstering the claims that Iraq had a dangerous weapons arsenal. [1] There was also the Iraq-Niger scandal where a bunch of confusing documents were coming out of Niger pertaining to potential uranium sales to Iraq during the time. [2] With the discovery of chemical weapons and the potential for nuclear weapons the United States invaded Iraq in order to prevent them from passing these weapons on to terrorist groups that wished to harm the United States.

In a time when the US had just been attacked these fears and claims were legitiment.

b) Links to al-Qaeda

Iraq had allegedly been supporting and or linked to al-Qaeda and in order to stop terrorism from spreading through out the region and in the interest and defense of the United States we invaded in order to disrupt the terrorist networks that were running strongly in the region at the time. The Iraq - al-Qaeda was later uncovered in Guantanamo Bay when an Iraqi intelligence official was discovered to have ties that led all the way to Osama bin Laden. [3]

So with fears of WMDs falling into terrorist hands and a proven connection between Iraq and the terrorist group (that "one group" that attacked us) we moved in in order to establish a base to continue to our hunt for al-Qaeda.

Also, we disposed of Sadam Hussain, a classic Middle Eastern dictator. President Obama has supported the newly born Arab Spring which has ties back to our disposing of Sadam.

If we can say that this set off the recent Arab Spring then it just one good thing that came out of this war that renders the resolution false.

=====================================================================================

Afghanistan

This one is simple, Afghanistan was essentially a terrorist state run by the Taliban, a group who was openly against the United States and was supporting and training terrorists to fight the United States and was also hiding Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind 9/11. In order to coninue the fight against terrorism and to continue to hunt down al-Qaeda, that one group again, we moved into Afghanistan to hunt the enemies of the United States.

=====================================================================================

The War on Terror: A Success

The United States essentially destroyed the terrorist movement in the Middle East which was the goal of the war in order to secure a long lasting defense of the United States.

We had killed or capture over 5000 terrorist soldiers by 2006 [4] a major blow to forces who would do ill to the United States.

al-Qaeda has been virtually destroyed from the ground up. Their entire chain of command has been eliminated making them a non-threat to the United States furthur securing peace and defense. [5]

al-Qaeda is having trouble recruiting Muslim youth for their terror plots. [6] This shows how the US has crushed the terrorism movement so far as to destroy the will of those who wished to commit acts of terror.

Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces. [7] He was the head of al-Qaeda, that one group who attacked us on 9/11.

=====================================================================================

Benefits and Successes of the War on Terror and Invasion of Iraq-Afghanistan:

- Sadam Hussain removed from power

- Arab Spring inspired by US introduced freedom to the Middle East

- The Taliban curbed in Afghanistan, freedom promoted

- Iraq holds free democratic elections [8]

- Afghanistan holds free democratic elections [9]

- Terrorism movement crushed

- al-Qaeda destroyed and is no longer a threat to the US

- Osama bin Laden killed

- No successful terrorist attacks on the United States since 9/11

As you can see the War on Terror has done good, achieved goals and established freedom for two nations overseas while protecting American soil at home. These events were in no way shape or form a waste of time, effort, money or lives.

* Note: saying that soldiers who volunteered their lives for the United States, and made the ultimate sacrifice in order to secure peace and safety for you and me, was a waste is disgustingly insulting.

The resolution is undeniably false.



[1] http://www.foxnews.com...
[2] http://www.slate.com...
[3] http://www.weeklystandard.com...
[4] http://abcnews.go.com...
[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[6] http://www.thefrontierpost.com...
[7] http://www.boston.com...
[8] http://topics.nytimes.com...
[9] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 1
aresrat

Con

First of all, Sadaam Hussein was killed before 9/11, during George H. W. Bush's presidency. And yes, even though Al-Quaida had ties to Iraq, that doesn't mean that they personally were the ones responsible. Instead of starting a full scale war, we should have went after Al-Quaida on a top secret lever, just like the Osama bin Laden mission.
Also, though the weapons of mass destruction could cause great damage if used, why did we act so foolishly to take their bait and enter their country. Fidel Castro said that he had missles that he would launch at Florida, but what happened? The thirty-fifth President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, had a discussion with him, and at the end of that discussion, Castro decided that it would not be wise to wipe Florida off the face of the Earth. Why couldn't George W. Bush have done the same?
When you are President of the United States, you have a briefcase that is carried around everywhere with you called the Football. Inside the Football are codes for nuclear missles that the President can use to point the missles at any place on Earth he wants. Why couldn't George W. Bush have threatened them with this information the same way that Kennedy did, instead of costing us valuble time, moneyy, and thousands of American lives.
Maybe if we hadn't been in virtually three wars, we wouldn't be in an economic crisis/recession right now.
ConservativePolitico

Pro

"First of all, Sadaam Hussein was killed before 9/11, during George H. W. Bush's presidency."

Saddam Hussein died in 2006 via execution after a trial put on by his own people.
[1] Your information is simply false...

My opponent dropped almost every one of my arguments and failed to address any of the key points I laid out for him.

Refutation:

We invaded Iraq in order to get to al-Qaeda while ridding the world of a dictator. Without our invasion and the information it brought us we never would have found Osama bin Laden in the first place. You can't carry out top secret missions on an enemy you know nothing about. Also before the invasion terrorism was too deeply engrained to simply root out with special ops alone.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a completely different matter. Kennedy would not have negotiated with Cuba if they had attacked us first. Also the United States has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. We were attacked and an attack does not call for negotations it calls for action.

Same goes for your nuclear missile point: you don't threaten people who have already attacked you. You attack back which is what we did.

Please reread my previous argument because all the points on why this war was a success and NOT a waste of anything at all is nicely laid out for your reading enjoyment.

Thank you.

Also the economic crisis is a completely different matter that is only indirectly tied to the war on terror. Another debate for another time.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
aresrat

Con

I do now fully understand my mistake in the date of Sadaam Hussein's execution. This is because of a misunderstanding of an article I read.

However, Iraq and Afghanistan did not attack us. Al-Quaida did.
ConservativePolitico

Pro

Allow me to reiterate:

Iraq

We invaded Iraq on two premises:

Weapons of Mass Destruction

and

Links to al-Qaeda

a) WMDs

There was a strong concensus amongst Western leaders that Iraq planned to obtain or already had weapons of mass destruction at their disposal and was a sentiment shared by the US, France and Britain in the late 90's. When we invaded Iraq in 2003 there was no evidence of nuclear weapons which caused everyone to believe that there were no WMDs whatsoever but this is not the case. Since 2003 over 500 chemical WMDs were discovered in Iraq bolstering the claims that Iraq had a dangerous weapons arsenal. [1] There was also the Iraq-Niger scandal where a bunch of confusing documents were coming out of Niger pertaining to potential uranium sales to Iraq during the time. [2] With the discovery of chemical weapons and the potential for nuclear weapons the United States invaded Iraq in order to prevent them from passing these weapons on to terrorist groups that wished to harm the United States.

In a time when the US had just been attacked these fears and claims were legitiment.

b) Links to al-Qaeda

Iraq had allegedly been supporting and or linked to al-Qaeda and in order to stop terrorism from spreading through out the region and in the interest and defense of the United States we invaded in order to disrupt the terrorist networks that were running strongly in the region at the time. The Iraq - al-Qaeda was later uncovered in Guantanamo Bay when an Iraqi intelligence official was discovered to have ties that led all the way to Osama bin Laden. [3]

So with fears of WMDs falling into terrorist hands and a proven connection between Iraq and the terrorist group (that "one group" that attacked us) we moved in in order to establish a base to continue to our hunt for al-Qaeda.

Also, we disposed of Sadam Hussain, a classic Middle Eastern dictator. President Obama has supported the newly born Arab Spring which has ties back to our disposing of Sadam.

If we can say that this set off the recent Arab Spring then it just one good thing that came out of this war that renders the resolution false.



You have failed to disprove any of my claims.

In conclusion:

- Sadam Hussain removed from power

- Arab Spring inspired by US introduced freedom to the Middle East

- The Taliban curbed in Afghanistan, freedom promoted

- Iraq holds free democratic elections [8]

- Afghanistan holds free democratic elections [9]

- Terrorism movement crushed

- al-Qaeda destroyed and is no longer a threat to the US

- Osama bin Laden killed

- No successful terrorist attacks on the United States since 9/11

(source Numbers coinside with round one)
Debate Round No. 3
aresrat

Con

aresrat forfeited this round.
ConservativePolitico

Pro

Points all dropped for the final time.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
aresratConservativePoliticoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: f
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
aresratConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF....and really bad arguments by Con....Pro's arguments for invading Iraq were not really valid but Con didn't bring that up...Afghanistan was really the only point Pro made that could not be argued well against...
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
aresratConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF. PRO had sources, con didn't. Also Con didn't really refute pro's arguments and pro had the stronger opening and arguments and strongest refutations. A pro win by far.