The Instigator
willact723
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
DrAcula
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points

The United States should continue efforts in Iraq without a time-table for redeployment.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 1,670 times Debate No: 246
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (14)

 

willact723

Con

The most important aspect to understand regarding this war is the concept of winning. The word "win" has been thrown around by Republican candidates in regards to our goal in Iraq. (Most specifically by John McCain) I believe one who chooses to take the "Pro" position needs to define what winning means. If "winning" means to end the insurgency or to quell it to a manageable level, then how do we do that differently then we are doing now? What is a mangaeable level, and who decides? If "winning" means to leave at a point when the Iraqi government can take care of itself, and its country, then what standards to we use? And what if they never reach them? Is there is a different definition to "winning?

I believe the argument regarding the troop surge working is not a viable argument. I believe it stands to reason that sending more troops to a confined location is most likely going to do something beneficial. If the only way we can keep controlling the situation in Iraq is by keeping up the level of troops, or continually increasing them, what happens when we eventually leave? Do we ever leave? Even if we don't increase troop levels, how do we capitalize on the success of the troop surge? Not to mention the issue of enlistment. How are we going to find enough troops to continue the surge? We are already seeing a decrease in the number of enlistments and the troops that are active are already having extended tours or shortened stays with their family.

A recent poll has shown that just under 50% of Iraqi citizens are frustrated with U.S. efforts in their country. This is compared to just 25% after the invasion. Is this not a sign that we have over stayed our welcome?

This is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the war in Iraq. I look forward to your response!
DrAcula

Pro

I'm not entirely sure if there is a way to win this War. We were in over our heads from the start, but right now, it's better to press on, then to just quit it.

Setting a time table would of course give us deadlines, which we most likely wouldn't meet, and make us look bad, but this isn't what I'm focusing my argument on.

Winning may be out of the question, but we at least need to not lose. What is losing? Losing is pulling out, and watching Iraq get swallowed by Fundamentalist Islamic nations. Pulling out would not only feed their power, but it would also lose any hope for democracy in the middle east. It would cause more people to be angry at us, and look bad in the long run if we ever try to help someone again. Iraq is pretty much doomed, but there still is a chance for this War to work, but if we set time lines, if we vow on pulling out, instead of finishing the fight, then we're less of a country than I thought we were.
Debate Round No. 1
willact723

Con

Well you have established the argument that we can't "lose" this war, and have chosen to first define loss as "pulling out, and watching Iraq get swallowed by Fundamentalist Islamic nations." While I understand the fear of that, I do not believe an argument based on "possibility" is a strong one. We can not base our decisions regarding Iraq on the "possibility" of something happening in the future. It is just not a sound strategy. Is that not the position that was taken in regards to Vietnam? Did we not enter Vietnam on the premise of a "possibility?" That possibility being the possibility that by Vietnam falling to Communism, so would other Asian countries. Did we not learn from that situation? Did Vietnam suffer to consequences of Communism? Yes, but not for long. Did the countries around Vietnam fall to Communism because of it? No, the Domino Theory proved to be wrong. I believe in many years we will see the same result regarding the "Iraq will fall to fundamentalist states" argument.

Your next argument is based on the premise that if we pulled out, which we still have not established is a viable one. "Pulling out would not only feed their power, but it would also lose any hope for democracy in the middle east. It would cause more people to be angry at us, and look bad in the long run if we ever try to help someone again." I don't believe we are losing hope for Democracy in the middle east, and I don't believe that pulling out of Iraq will add to that thought. In fact, we are seeing a desire for Democracy coming out of the middle east. When President Musharraf struck down the Constitution in Pakistan, we immediately saw a negative reaction from the Pakistanis. The response is so negative, we know are seeing Pakistan return to a Democracy. We can also look to Iran. President Ahmadinejad's popularity has been on the decline in recent years. In fact, in the most recent election, his party lost many elections to parties in favor of a more Democratic system. These both are signs of progress in the middle east. In regards to "more people being angry at us", I am not sure what that means. What people would be mad at us? The Iraqis? Well the current poll suggests that half the country would like us to leave, so are you speaking of the other half? Well if we are truly speaking of wanting a Democracy in Iraq, the majority has spoken, their support for our efforts are waning. I do not believe we will look bad in the long run for pulling out of Iraq, most countries did not even support the original invasion of Iraq, so why would they become upset with us? What does it mean to "help someone again"? Are you saying it is our role to invade countries to remove their leaders we don't agree with? While this is not the topic at hand, I feel that ideal is the main issue we are having here. We have this mindset that we are helping the Iraqi people. Yes we are helping them now, but we will never help them unless we establish reachable goals, attached to a time-table of phased withdrawal.

I do not believe that Iraq is doomed. The future is bright for Iraq, but not if we continue our presence there for an extended period of time. Our sheer presence in Iraq is enraging the insurgents.

I believe your mindset in regards to this comment: "if we vow on pulling out, instead of finishing the fight, then we're less of a country than I thought we were." Is another fundamental problem we have. Some Americans have this mindset that by pulling out of Iraq is some how a defeat and that by leaving we appear weak and unable to do something. This is exactly what was argued during Vietnam, not only did it not end up being true. The Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, so in some perspectives, we ended up winning the larger war anyway.
DrAcula

Pro

It is good that the people at least are starting to like Democracy. It would be great if Iraq could establish a Democratic government, then the people could press their own leaders for it, but as shown by Musharaaf's recent Martial Law, leaders aren't taking it kindly. Democracy can only exist if there is an actual Democracy there. My stance on Iraq being doomed, is that we messed everything up by marching right in, thinking we would hand it to Saddam, and take everyone down easily. We never predicted an insurgency, and that's where the problems lies. Because Iranians an Syrians (I think there are Syrian insurgents) are there, if we were to leave, it would lead to them influencing the Iraqi's. And yeah, half of the Iraqi's want us to leave, but they think that the insurgency will leave with us, which isn't the case. That's why we need to stay, to wait out the insurgency until it stops, or until we go to war with another country. We have the manpower, we just need to redistribute our troops. There are MANY bases in other countries such as South Korea, Germany, and Japan that we could easily take troops from and deploy them to Iraq. Once we establish some sort of strong presence there, it will be a bit easier, and a bit more logical (us staying there)
Debate Round No. 2
willact723

Con

President Musharraf did declaration of Martial Law had nothing to do with Iraq, it had everything to do with Al Qaida in the Mountains of Pakistan. Normally we would be there helping out with the fight, but our attention has been diverted to Iraq! In 2001 we were attacked by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida and an overwhelming majority of Americans approved invasion of Afghanistan to cut off their training camps and hopefully find Bin Laden. But soon after we were diverted to Iraq. Now, nearly 6 years later, we have STILL not found Bin Laden. Iraq may or may not be the cause of it, but it has most definitely slowed the efforts down.

It also should be mentioned that Iraq DOES have a Democratic government. We put one in after toppling Saddam.

Actually, it is not technically a specific national group that is in Iraq, but we do have evidence that Iran is supporting insurgent efforts in Iraq. So what do we do about this? I can only see two options. We either leave Iraq and see where we stand. Or we stay in Iraq and try push it through. Well the truth is that as long as we stay in Iraq, Iran MAY continue to support insurgents. So then our only option (if we don't leave) is to stop Iran. How are we going to do that? Sanctions maybe? They don't care about that (as has been shown). So what, then we invade? If that is the course of action, then we most definitely need to leave Iraq. How about the option of a time-table? A time-table would not only allow the redeployment of troops, but it would allow us to see what Iraq is looking like as we begin to leave the country. Remember, the debate is regarding a time-table, not immediate withdrawal. We cannot stay in a country because we are worried about the POSSIBILITY that another country MAY capitalize on the POSSIBILITY of an Iraqi governmental failure.

Well we cannot speculate at the reasons why the Iraqi people want us to leave. To say it is only because "they think that the insurgency will leave with us", is an unfair claim. Who knows, they may just be tired of American troops patrolling their streets and busting into the house. And who knows, they may be RIGHT in regards to the insurgency ending.

So we should stay until the insurgency ends??? Well I believe I addressed that above in regards to Iran. But we should wait "until we go to war with another country." I really hope that was just a slip in writing. That may be the most absurd thing i've ever heard. So we should just stick around until we declare war on someone else? Iran maybe? You seem smarter than that.

You say we have "plenty" of troops in other bases across the world, well the truth is, we don't. Not only that, but the reason we aren't bringing the troops from other bases to Iraq, is because they have jobs to do. They are in those places because they are needed, not as just reserves. The national guard is depleted in America, states officials are beginning to get angry about this war because so many troops are being pulled from the National Guard, they are worried about their ability to respond to a state wide threat.

I need to end by asking you what a "strong presence" is? Are you saying that 150,000 troops is NOT a strong presence? Because that is how many are in Iraq right now. How about the 2,800 in addition who have died? This doesn't even mention the approximate 1 million Iraqis who have died since the invasion.

I really hope this has caused you to think about your support of this war. Your argument has been based on an irrational fear of 1.) Iran and 2.) Bruising the American Ego. Defeat is NOT synonymous with withdrawal. We have been in this war for long enough. It has proved to be unwinable, which is far more important than the perception of "losing". The world is not black and white, war is not about "winning" and "losing". It is not a zero-sum game. It is time to set a time-table for withdrawal.
DrAcula

Pro

I'm never going to support the reasons we've gone to war. Had Bush come out and say we're invading because we want to spread democracy and help out the little man, I would have been fine. The reason I don't support it is because it was based on misconstrued intelligence.

But my point is, we CAN'T leave, and setting time tables is a bad idea, because you and I both know how stubborn the people in charge of this war are. They're going to stay until the deed is done. They're going to break time tables if they think we're on the verge of stopping the problem, which face it, they will always use that excuse.

Regarding Iran; We CAN invade Iran while still in Iraq. Granted, it'll make us look worse than we already are to the UN, and it'll make us look like we're trying to take over the middle east, but if we can invade on the grounds that we're pretty much at war with their soldiers anyway, we should at least get some support, because they're as bad as us when we invaded Iraq. They're invading Iraq to "help the people"

If it comes down to numbers, then again, there's no reason to leave Iraq, there's no reason to make time tables that we're eventually going to break. Because of our 20th century Imperialist stage, we have soldiers stationed in all the countries we've won war against. We have soldiers in parts of Asia, and most larger countries in Europe. If we need soldiers for another cause, say, the terrorists in the mountains of Palestine, then we could have redeployed THOSE troops that were, for lack of a better phrase, "gathering dust" in Europe and Asia. We had more than enough to handle that.

Great Debate.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MarineCorpsConservative 9 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
Maybe for a specific MOS (job) it might be $50,000 to $60,000 but not for the overall force.
Posted by willact723 9 years ago
willact723
I can only speak for the bonuses that are in my area, but they just raised the one in my town from 50,000 to 60,000.
Posted by MarineCorpsConservative 9 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
The army is not down which is why they are cutting down their bonus program. The navy is down because they are trying to cut back to build up the army and the marine corps.
Posted by willact723 9 years ago
willact723
Marine enlistment's are always higher than normal. (According to recent stats) because it is a special group of people who want to enlist. The other branches, the Army and Navy are down very significantly.
Posted by willact723 9 years ago
willact723
I never said that all the people are unhappy. I cited a poll number which showed 50% were. Compared to 25% when we invaded. That shows a clear difference.

Stop on who you agree with, and vote who won the debate.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Not all Iraqi people are unhappy we are there. Remember you dont see it all unless you are there. You only see what the news shows you. My husband is there and says many of the people are actually happy we are there.
Posted by MarineCorpsConservative 9 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
You say, "We are already seeing a decrease in the number of enlistments."

The military is at an all time high in enlistments. The marine corps i know for one is ahead of its enlistment goals by about 6 months.
Posted by willact723 9 years ago
willact723
I think the main issue is that you feel it is our job to stop the insurgency and the only way to do that is by crushing them and anyone supporting them militarily. If that is not your opinion, you haven't argued otherwise by supporting a continued indefinite stay in Iraq and a war with Iran. Do we just follow them where ever they go?
Posted by DrAcula 9 years ago
DrAcula
how else would we stop the insurgency? and yes, we have an adequate number of troops that are placed in other countries BECAUSE of our imperialistic attitude. I'm not sure if the numbers would be totally good, but last year in debate I had evidence about it, shame i threw it away.
Posted by willact723 9 years ago
willact723
I enjoyed the debate as well, but i seriously hope you are kidding when speaking of war with Iran. Do you not understand we don't have the troops for that? We can't run around declaring war on everyone who pisses us off. I understand that's not the debate we are having...maybe it will be the next. Just seriously consider what you are saying. Your imperialistic attitude is why the rest of the world hates us. Not to mention it is why we are hurting our own troops.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by easy2know 9 years ago
easy2know
willact723DrAculaTied
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
willact723DrAculaTied
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
willact723DrAculaTied
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 thisearthlyride 9 years ago
thisearthlyride
willact723DrAculaTied
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 MarineCorpsConservative 9 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
willact723DrAculaTied
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 sluggerjal 9 years ago
sluggerjal
willact723DrAculaTied
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 PoorRichardsAlmanack 9 years ago
PoorRichardsAlmanack
willact723DrAculaTied
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 whitesoxfan450 9 years ago
whitesoxfan450
willact723DrAculaTied
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 Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
willact723DrAculaTied
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 InsuranceTeaseDOTcom 9 years ago
InsuranceTeaseDOTcom
willact723DrAculaTied
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