The Instigator
the_conservative
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
A-ThiestSocialist
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points

The Wars in Iraq,Afghanistan,and the imminent war in Iran

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: 12/13/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,455 times Debate No: 390
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (20)

 

the_conservative

Pro

First i will start with afghanistan, the war there is necessary ,On September 11th , 2001 Extremist terrorists attacked our country and 3,000 people were killed in the brutal attacks. On october 7th 2001 George W Bush sent troops into Afghanistan to spell down the taliban regime in afghanistan. They have been a threat to the Western worlds and we had to face them sooner or later rather than letting them get away with the attacks. Since may of 1996 Osama bin laden who was the mastermind of the attacks had been living ther commanding Al qaeda and Taliban camps of destruction. In order to quell the Terrorist regimes we must go through that country and fight for our lives back at home and for the free nation's of the world. In Iraq we thought Saddam had WMD's although they have never found those....you have to remember that they also have'nt found them either....what was that big convoy leaving the border of iraq and crossing into Syria the week before the invasion??Weve lost close to 4,000 men and women in the war so why pull out??WE might as well win then pull out and waste the lives of men and women who are already dead.Iran now? BECAUSE A-JAD IS A CRAZY NUT AND WANTS TO KILL US ALL!!
A-ThiestSocialist

Con

For this debate, I'm going to argue specifically your claims, but here is my position.
The War in Afghanistan was justified, but mismanaged under President Bush

The War in Iraq was based on faulty intelligence, however was the right thing to do. It was mismanaged under President Bush.

The United States should NOT attack Iran.

First, I'd like to briefly strengthen my own case, then move onto direct refutation of my opponent.

In explaining on Afghanistan, my simple conclusion is that the United States did not devote enough attention to the Al-Quaeda operatives there, and allowed the herion production to grow. The US under President Bush went in slowly, and left it to NATO, which mismanaged the entire operation, and has unsuccessfully lead the war. Because Bush not only changed US focus, but neglected support and aid from NATO, he is partially at fault. (notice partially)

Next, I'd like to first say Saddam Hussein was an evil man who should have been taken out, however it was done incorrectly. Bush did not wait for more countries, and acted on faulty intelligence. As David Kaye reports on the subject "curveball" this was a huge claim on the Iraq war, and whether it be intentional or not, the intelligence, such as this which was crucial, was either falsified or inaccurate, as seen today. Next, although the surge is working militarily, the US has no definition of success under President Bush, and no real goals. The idea of the surge was that things would quiet down so the Iraqis could sort things out. Things are quiet, but still in political chaos. As the troops from the surge leave, and violence will begin to escalate due to the lack of troops and re-emergence of Sunni attacks.

Finally, the US should not attack Iran. Not to mention the fact that Iran posses no real imminent threat to the US whatsoever, it isn't in our best interests. We don't have the military capablities to attack/invade, invasion would be a strategical nightmare, we wouldn't have international or national support, and it's unneccessary. The youth in Iran will eventually overtake the power in the country within the next few years, and modernize it more and more. Also, the sanctions placed on Iran are currently working, as Ayatollah's approval ratings are dropping.

Next, my opponents arguments.
"First i will start with afghanistan, the war there is necessary ,On September 11th , 2001 Extremist terrorists attacked our country and 3,000 people were killed in the brutal attacks. On october 7th 2001 George W Bush sent troops into Afghanistan to spell down the taliban regime in afghanistan. They have been a threat to the Western worlds and we had to face them sooner or later rather than letting them get away with the attacks. Since may of 1996 Osama bin laden who was the mastermind of the attacks had been living ther commanding Al qaeda and Taliban camps of destruction. In order to quell the Terrorist regimes we must go through that country and fight for our lives back at home and for the free nation's of the world."
The war there is necessary, but mismanaged. As the economist reports, the US would have many more terrorist operatives and Taliban operatives had the war been given more focus and attention, and attention not been shifted to Iraq, thus your claims, although partially true, are outweighed.

Next, my opponent claims "In Iraq we thought Saddam had WMD's although they have never found those....you have to remember that they also have'nt found them either....what was that big convoy leaving the border of iraq and crossing into Syria the week before the invasion??we've lost close to 4,000 men and women in the war so why pull out??WE might as well win then pull out and waste the lives of men and women who are already dead."

My point on Iraq partially addresses this, however I'd like to further argue some of these claims. First, the idea that the US would miss the exchange of thousands of tons of WMD's is absurd. We can find Saddam in a foxhole, but we miss 1,000,000,000 lbs of material? The CIA reported in 2004 that Iraq was mostly disarmed, and ended it's search for WMD's asserting that it would be futile. I'm not arguing a "pull out of troops" so that argument doesn't really apply, what I am arguing is a shift in President Bush's strategy, and if necessary a troop withdrawal to force the Iraqi's to do something.

Finally my opponent claims "Iran now? BECAUSE A-JAD IS A CRAZY NUT AND WANTS TO KILL US ALL!!"

This is completely false, and even if it were true, wouldn't matter. First, Ahmadinejad is a figurehead with no political power whatsoever. What he says means nothing, since he is not the supreme leader in charge of foreign policy. Secondly, anti-Israeli sentiment is falsely given to Ahmadinejad. Not only does "wipe off the face of the earth" not exist linguistically in Persian, but also the quote was a mistranslation. The actual estimated translation is a reference to the Ayatollah's comments regarding positive regime change in Israel, however many are afraid to translate it because it is highly abstract and not intentionally concrete.

Thus after weighing the facts, my case stands.
Debate Round No. 1
the_conservative

Pro

hardcore....anyways My opponet claims "First, Ahmadinejad is a figurehead with no political power whatsoever. What he says means nothing, since he is not the supreme leader in charge of foreign policy. Secondly, anti-Israeli sentiment is falsely given to Ahmadinejad. Not only does "wipe off the face of the earth" not exist linguistically in Persian, but also the quote was a mistranslation. The actual estimated translation is a reference to the Ayatollah's comments regarding positive regime change in Israel, however many are afraid to translate it because it is highly abstract and not intentionally concrete."

Well according to this you basically just based this sentence almost liking it to those of a young Adolph Hitler in the 1930's. War is imminent with Iran no matter what and if it comes down to that it is necessary. Our clearly antagonic enemies of Iran is surrounded by our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan , who are becoming our allies along with Saudi Arabia and Syria. A pre-emptive strike on iran would never be approved by congress (which our current cong. is a joke anyways). Ahhh but a military war may not be necessary while one is with cutting off their supplies,and beat them into submission.....Iran DOES have the power to cause havoc in the world and especially in the mid-east....Iran still hates iraq from the invasions from saddam and they are certainly strong enough topull off an extensice takeover of the middle east COUGH**Iran takes Afghanistan after we pull out Cough* germany and poland sep.1st 1939 cough** anyways if it will come down to a war with bodies we should remove their communications first such as in any war.....by the way im most Iranians are brainwashed into hating Americans,and Jews any ways....dont be fools peopele.....it is necessary.....maybe not this year but i can see us there by the end of 2009
A-ThiestSocialist

Con

I regret that this debate is only 2 rounds, so maybe we can continue further dialog elsewhere.

Alright, first of all in this debate, my earlier refutations and first to claims stand, because they were not opposed by my opponent. I'm going to divide his response into two claims, then refute them, and then finally provide further clarity into the voting issues on this round.

The first half of his case goes as follows "Well according to this you basically just based this sentence almost liking it to those of a young Adolph Hitler in the 1930's. War is imminent with Iran no matter what and if it comes down to that it is necessary. Our clearly antagonic enemies of Iran is surrounded by our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan , who are becoming our allies along with Saudi Arabia and Syria. A pre-emptive strike on iran would never be approved by congress (which our current cong. is a joke anyways). Ahhh but a military war may not be necessary while one is with cutting off their supplies,and beat them into submission.....Iran DOES have the power to cause havoc in the world and especially in the mid-east."
First of all the Hitler comparison isn't really adequate, because as I stated previous Ahmadinejad isn't really as radical as the mass media portrays him. Next, war is not imminent, because if we continue our policy of sanctions and diplomacy then we will avoid war. It has worked previously, such as in North Korea's case, and will continue to work if applied correctly. Your next major and final claim in this section is that Iran has the power to cause havoc in the middle east and the world. I grant you that Iran does weld some influence over Middle East politics, but simply because of their large amounts of oil reserves. (This also applies on a global scale) Militarily, Iran is not viewed as a threat, because they don't have the capabilities. They are simply raising rhetoric against other countries. Also, Iran doesn't have any nuclear capabilities, and their 3,000 centrifuges have since been halted since 2003. Russia has also talked about stopping their help with Iran to protect their natural gas interests in Tajikistan and Azerbijian.

Next in the second half my opponent claims "Iran still hates iraq from the invasions from saddam and they are certainly strong enough topull off an extensice takeover of the middle east COUGH**Iran takes Afghanistan after we pull out Cough* germany and poland sep.1st 1939 cough** anyways if it will come down to a war with bodies we should remove their communications first such as in any war.....by the way im most Iranians are brainwashed into hating Americans,and Jews any ways....dont be fools peopele.....it is necessary.....maybe not this year but i can see us there by the end of 2009"
Iran's hatred towards Iraq doesn't really play a role in this debate. The US hates Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, but nothing is changed. (As a side note, I think you should see a doctor, your cough seems to be contagious towards not only humans but also technology) Iran won't take Afghanistan, or Iraq because they know that the US will simply fight them. Michael O'Hannlon actually details this in an article. Iran wants to continue it's oil interests, but also needs to keep strong partnerships. The US as a larger foe would hurt them economically. Finally, the growing youth, which represents almost 45% of Iran is Pro-US, so the general idea that they hate the US is false, there is growing westernization under current policies of diplomacy and sanctions.

In this round, the major issues are that my arguments regarding Iraq and Afghanistan hold, and after analysis of Iran and the situation there hold. The major issue is where are the current policies and how my opponent and I differ, and through this illustration I have shown why my side holds.
Debate Round No. 2
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
shut up....they may be anti ahdmejad or w/e his name is but could care less about a poll....that just means they wont suicide bomb us when we are there....the other 60% will
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
the statistic is actually that a large majority of Iran is pro US. They're getting angry at Ahmadinejad over the sanctions. The youth, under 25, is somewhere around 35-40% of Iran. (I can't recall exactly) There was an economist article detailing it in June, I believe the 3rd week, but I may be mistaken.
Posted by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
and i wanna know where he got the fact where 45% of the youth is pro U.S.........bullshit
Posted by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
i know i didnt use much of the "terms" as athiest.....but sometimes in a debate its about the emotion and feeling of the people and the common sense....not always by the book.............did i do good though for my first one?it was kind of a hard topic for my first one
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
haha. I hate policy and PF. Student Congress all the way!
Posted by zombiegoldfish 9 years ago
zombiegoldfish
heavy debate guys

good points were made by both of you, but A-theistSocialist made his a little more solid and less dependant on the emotional side

very nice mix of policy and public forum
Posted by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
yeah this is harcore man....that was my first debate oh well.........it was fun i guess?
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
kermal, notice the - between a and "thiest" there's a reason for it being there. I'm proud to be one of the few theist socialists. Thanks for the ballot though.
Posted by kemal 9 years ago
kemal
athiestSocialist,
you pretty clearly won that debate in my mind,although i disagree with you on some points.

but judging by your screen name on this site we have two things in common =)
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
chuckles, you do student congress? Any big accomplishments?
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
the_conservativeA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
the_conservativeA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
the_conservativeA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 ANSmith 9 years ago
ANSmith
the_conservativeA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 JTSmith 9 years ago
JTSmith
the_conservativeA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
the_conservativeA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
the_conservativeA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
the_conservativeA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 chrispy4 9 years ago
chrispy4
the_conservativeA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 buckaroo54 9 years ago
buckaroo54
the_conservativeA-ThiestSocialistTied
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