The Instigator
blond_guy
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

War in Iraq.

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: 2/26/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,491 times Debate No: 2933
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (12)

 

blond_guy

Con

I see you are a libertarian, and you support join McCain. However, one of the FEW things you agree with McCain on is the war in Iraq. I'm against the war so I'm curious of why you are for it. So let me tell you why I am against it and you can tell me why you think I'm wrong.

1) The people who have made predictions before we entered Iraq such as "we're going to find WMD's, the Iraqi citizens will welcome us there, etc..." were dead wrong, and now they're the ones saying "if we leave, they're going to follow us home". We found no WMD's and the Iraqi citizens prefer Saddam Hussein than us. And I understand why. With Saddam you just said "sir, yes sir" and you stay alive. Poor and starving. But alive. With America you can get a bullet through you just crossing the street. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens have died, you can't possibly believe those were all evil guilty Islamic extremists that we killed with good reason. We decide that Saddam is an evil mass murderer so what do we do? We kill even more innocent people than he did, not to mention our own who also died by the thousands. So now these people who got us into this mess are making the prediction that "they're going to follow us home" because they don't want us to leave. And why do they not want us to leave? Because then this war will be looked back at as a mistake on their part for making these false predictions. I also find it hard to believe that "they're gonna follow us home", because they have nothing to follow us home with. Iraq never attacked us, Iran never attacked us, and they never will. If Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon why is it that America has to be the only country disarming them? America needs to stop pretending like they're the world police, because with a 9 trillion dollar deficit, we can't afford it anymore. If we never had gone into Iraq, we'd save 2 trillion dollars, 40,000 soldiers (and counting), and Iraq would be more stable than it is now.

I'll leave it at that, and I'll save other arguments for later.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

It's true I don't agree with Mccain on much. Indeed precisely speaking I don't agree with him on Iraq (I agree that a war should take place there but not in the manner he describes.) My support for Mccain is strictly a matter of all the other candidates being even worse. but that of course is not the debate.

"The people who have made predictions before we entered Iraq such as "we're going to find WMD's, the Iraqi citizens will welcome us there, etc..." were dead wrong, and now they're the ones saying "if we leave, they're going to follow us home""

These predictions I do not share and did not when they were made, and I was 13 at the time :D. I don't take my advice on the matter from the neocons.

Indeed I don't have a problem with leaving at this point, I simply favor the initial act of war.

"We found no WMD's and the Iraqi citizens prefer Saddam Hussein than us. "

We did indeed find no WMD's, but although the Iraqi citizens' preferences are not my prime motive, there are no indications that the citizens on the whole find him preferable. It was Iraqi citizens, not US troops, who tore down his statues, after all. The Sunnis certainly favored him, but the Sunnis were the minority party and he was a sunni. The Shiites and Kurds did not favor him. Indeed he had an odd habit of sending them to gas chambers.

"With Saddam you just said "sir, yes sir" and you stay alive. Poor and starving. But alive. With America you can get a bullet through you just crossing the street. "

"Staying alive" means nothing when you are a slave. Although the gas chambers seem to indicate even the staying alive part was difficult at times.

Yes, a bit of a security risk does come with the present situation. But, people there have a better shot at freedom. And keep in mind most of them are shooting each other, Americans don't shoot one "just crossing the street."

"Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens have died, you can't possibly believe those were all evil guilty Islamic extremists that we killed with good reason."
Many of them were that or complicit in Saddam's crimes (Saddam and his party were not Islamist extremists but socialist ones). The innocents among them, i.e. those who were not participating in some manner in the oppression of someone, obviously realize the value of freedom (anyone who didn't would pick an oppressing side and start on it already.) One cannot realize the value of freedom without being willing to risk one's life for it.

"Iraq never attacked us"

Technically true. they have others to attack.

"Iran never attacked us"
False, Iran funds those who attack us. Unlike Iraq they have direct ties to Al Qaeda. They also employ two terror groups, hamas and hezbollah, almost fully on their paycheck, to attack Israel (which admittedly has many of its own crimes, but the attacks from Iran predate the crimes). Plus, they give arms to Sunni insurgents. And they held plenty of Americans prisoner back in the day of course.

So why Iraq in all this? Because Iran, and Saudi Arabia (technically our "ally" according to the administration, but an even bigger state sponsor of anti-american terrorist groups than Iran), both border Iraq. Iraq has a number of chaotic forces (see what's going on now) that Saddam kept under control. Now that Saddam and his Arab Socialist Ba'ath party are out of power, the minute we leave Iraq those forces will be even more out of control. They will spill over into Iran and Saudi Arabia, both of which will then have to dedicate resources to stopping it (resources that can no longer be used against America.) Either they fail and they're stuck, or they succeed- and end up right next to each other in the middle of Iraq. Both are our enemies (even though the idiot administration thinks the Saudis are allies), but Saudi Arabia is essentially Sunni, and Iran is Shia. We've seen what happens when those two mix- hell. When the enemies of America are stuck using resources against each other in hell, america wins.

I won't pretend that either the current administration or Mccain has this plan in mind. But the polls clearly show that whoever is the next president, if they want another term, needs to get out of Iraq. They will not follow us home (even if they wanted to, Iraqi power projection capabilities are essentially nil at the moment). They will be busy. That is the proper goal of the Iraq war. Not the Iraq occupation, which I don't support, it's altruistic nonsense. The war qua war.
Debate Round No. 1
blond_guy

Con

NO! My whole argument got deleted... :/ Well here I go again...

Apparently you do not CURRENTLY support the war in Iraq and you don't believe that Iraq was a direct threat to us. So why the war?

<>

The Republicans don't want to pull out because that will show what a waste it was to go there.

<>

We killed more than half of the people Saddam had killed in his entire life. How long did it take us? Imagine we stay for 100 years. I'd say at least half a million Iraqis would die. For what? Answer that question.

<>

So does the Bush administration and we're not dropping bombs over their heads.

<>
<>

I would love to see your plan work, but what makes you think they'll spill over into other countries? Wouldn't they want to just stay in Iraq? Even if they did, was it worth it having so many of our own killed?

<>

I would say that it's "a bit of a security risk" is a bit of an understatement, considering that due to this war hundreds of thousands have died. You can go and tell THEM the great shot at freedom they've got thanks to us! :)
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"
Apparently you do not CURRENTLY support the war in Iraq and you don't believe that Iraq was a direct threat to us. So why the war?
'

Your confused it seems. I do not support the continuation of the war. But I support the fact of the war's existence.

It's like if someone were debating the Civil War's validity (as I did recently). They don't have to support the continuation of the war into now (i.e. having Bush send troops to the Confederacy in 2008), to say they "support the war." The idea would be absurd. :D

And direct threats are not the only kind, indirectly aiding threats is a problem in itself.

"
The Republicans don't want to pull out because that will show what a waste it was to go there.
"
They aren't really going to have much of a choice if they want a second term.

"
We killed more than half of the people Saddam had killed in his entire life. How long did it take us? Imagine we stay for 100 years. I'd say at least half a million Iraqis would die. For what? Answer that question."
If we stayed for 100 years, we'd be doing it for the Iraqis' sake because we'd be stupid.
The ones that died in the part of the war I support (2003 to about mid 2005 if I'm getting my timeline correct) died because Saddam and the Baathists wanted power and we were unwilling to let their holding of the population hostage provide that for them. They can blame Saddam and the Baathists.

"
So does the Bush administration and we're not dropping bombs over their heads.
"
The bush administration has "Direct" ties to al qaeda? I thought they had indirect ones via oil. Either way I'd be fine with killing a few members of the Bush administration if someone had a good plan for it (dropping bombs is hardly practical since most of the people in charge of bombing things in this country happen to live next door, so the campaign would be self-limiting.)

"
I would love to see your plan work, but what makes you think they'll spill over into other countries? Wouldn't they want to just stay in Iraq?"

The Iraqis are at war with each other if you'll recall. Eventually one of them will have to retreat somewhere to one end of the border and the other will push them over. Parties at war with each other don't sit still when they're fairly evenly matched.

"Even if they did, was it worth it having so many of our own killed?"
Would it be worth emboldening Al Qaeda and other such parties to kill many of our own by leaving their base stable?

Many American soldiers are going to die one way or another with groups like Al Qaeda thinking the way they do about us, the risk is part of what they're hired for. The question is how many, and how many American civilians who didn't volunteer for it are going to be added to be added to the butcher's bill?

If you have enemies who are willing to initiate force (a la 9/11), you are at war, like it or not. The question is how you're going to handle it.

If the plan succeeds and prevents greater future casualties, it is worth the soldiers' efforts. If they disagree, they need not join the military.

"
I would say that it's "a bit of a security risk" is a bit of an understatement, considering that due to this war hundreds of thousands have died. You can go and tell THEM the great shot at freedom they've got thanks to us! :)"
The ones that are capable of realizing it mostly already do.
And understatements keep things lively :D
Debate Round No. 2
blond_guy

Con

Can you just tell me why you are for the war and what we've achieved in that war that you like so much? That's all I wanna know, I don't care if you win the debate, just try to convince me that that war had a purpose worth dying for.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"Can you just tell me why you are for the war and what we've achieved in that war that you like so much? That's all I wanna know, I don't care if you win the debate, just try to convince me that that war had a purpose worth dying for.
"

Worth "dying for?" That would imply 100% casualties. The needed standard is worth RISKING dying for. Almost nobody will do something if they know for a fact that they will die as a result, and almost nobody should.

The achievement in the war was removing Saddam's Baathist party from power and thus causing difficulties for Iran and Saudi Arabia to fund terrorists to attack Americans and thus abrogate American freedom. Much of this achievement has been cancelled by the subsequent occupation. But since the occupation cannot in any effective sense be permanent, a part of the achievement will remain when it is over. The continued entry of the volunteer soldiers into the war demonstrates that they consider this achievement or some other worth it, and their opinions are the ones that matter here (along with the opnions of those of the Iraqis fighting alongside us, the rest if innocent should frankly flee to safer ground, and most have since removing Saddam left them with that option).
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Shwayze, lemme know when you have a question like this, in something I'm paying attention to.

The goal is to reduce enemy power projection by reducing stability in the economies that enemy fund power projection. The goal of the surge is to increase stability- which causes the economies that fund enemy power projection to become stronger.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
how are the goals of the surge counter to the purpose of the war?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
to reduce the resources and therefore power projection abilities of Al Qaeda, all groups like them, and all groups that fund groups like them?
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
what do you think the purpose of the war is?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
but shwayze, about the surge... The surge might be succeeding in it's stated goals, but those goals are counter to the purpose of the war :D.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Supporting a war doesn't mean liking the fact that it started - it means wanting it to continue. The correct statment that could be made on the Civil War would be "The Civil War was justified", not that you support it, because the use of such a verb, especially in the present tense, implies a whole lot more than being glad it happened in the first place.
2 Days Ago"

You are ignoring the possibility of "supporting" in the present the fact of the past.

After all one couldn't say they "supported'" the civil war, they weren't alive back then.

I support the fact that the Iraq war occurred, in the sense I am in favor of it's having occurred.

Statements can have complex and multiple meanings.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
blonde guy, you throw out some ridiculous claims that aren't true.

"...the Iraqi citizens prefer Saddam Hussein than us."

You think the iraqi citizens prefer a dictator who killed, raped, and gased thousands of his own people?

You also said "hundreds of thousands" of iraqi citizens have died. You must be referring to the time when Saddam ruled the country and promoted ethnic cleansing against his people. Please show me a source that says hundreds of thousands iraqi citizens have died.

You also said 40,000 soliders "and counting"...Ive heard some ridiculous statements before, but that one takes the cake. You're a left0-wing talking machine.

And why are we talking about if the war was justified or not, THAT WAS 5 YEARS AGO. Why dont we talk about the success of the surge and political reconciliation that is going on in Iraq. We're winning the war. Thats why we dont hera about it on the news anymore.
Posted by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
Ragnar:

In listing yourself as "In Favor" of the War in Iraq, the statement you agreed with is "I support the War in Iraq," not "I support going to war in Iraq." Supporting a war doesn't mean liking the fact that it started - it means wanting it to continue. The correct statment that could be made on the Civil War would be "The Civil War was justified", not that you support it, because the use of such a verb, especially in the present tense, implies a whole lot more than being glad it happened in the first place.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
blond_guyRagnar_RahlTied
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 Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
blond_guyRagnar_RahlTied
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 Xera 9 years ago
Xera
blond_guyRagnar_RahlTied
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 lorca 9 years ago
lorca
blond_guyRagnar_RahlTied
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 out_n_proud_HINDU 9 years ago
out_n_proud_HINDU
blond_guyRagnar_RahlTied
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 claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
blond_guyRagnar_RahlTied
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 proaz 9 years ago
proaz
blond_guyRagnar_RahlTied
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 shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
blond_guyRagnar_RahlTied
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 goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
blond_guyRagnar_RahlTied
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 zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
blond_guyRagnar_RahlTied
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