The Instigator
RDJORD
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
policydebategod
Pro (for)
Losing
12 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: 12/17/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,248 times Debate No: 593
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (13)

 

RDJORD

Con

(This is my first debate on this site, so I am still learning the rules)

The War in Iraq has turned out disastrous for the United States of America. It has cost us four hundred and seventy billion dollars (to date), the lives of four thousand U.S. servicemen, and nearly forty thousand casualties. In addition, it has damaged our international prestige, critically weakened our armed forces, and strengthened our enemies in the region (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda).

Let me be clear, I am not "morally" against the Iraq war…I was not one of those na�ve people who watched Fahrenheit 9/11 (specifically, the scene with the kids flying kites and playing on swings in Hussein's Iraq) and believed it was an accurate depiction. Saddam was brutal dictator that should have eventually been dealt with…just not until the US and our Allies had properly stabilized Afghanistan and eliminated the threat of Al-Qaeda (ambiguous I know, but you get the idea)

I was also slightly disturbed by the constant hinting of a connection between Iraq, 9/11, WMDs, and Al-Qaeda. There was no direct connection between the four. As much as I hated Saddam Hussein, he was not nearly as urgent of a threat as Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban.

Despite my problems with the war at the onset, I still believed that a good outcome was possible. During the first phase of actual combat of the war, the U.S. suffered very few casualties and toppled Saddam fairly quickly. In the "occupation stage" however, things started to turn sour. In my opinion, the notion of a "light" US force which would simply depose Hussein and leave in August of 2003 set the backdrop for the insurgency that would later form. Here is a list of mistakes which I believe the U.S. made.

1) The counterinsurgency doctrine states that to effectively occupy a country, you need one soldier for every forty or fifty civilians (480,000 soldiers in Iraq). Currently, the U.S. has one solider in Iraq for every one hundred and forty civilians. (approx)

2) In my opinion, the looting was a key stage in the "shift" to Shiite militias. During the looting, billions of dollars worth of equipment was stolen. The Iraqi National Archive, was set ablaze destroying virtually everything inside (even documents that were seven thousand years old.) I have heard reports of looters going to construction sites and using cranes to completely dismantle construction projects. Furthermore (continuing with the theme of toppling Saddam and leaving in August), U.S. soldiers were not ordered to stop the looting because they did not want to get deeply entangled in peacekeeping operations. This led many communities to turn to Shiite militias for protection against looters, and increased militia power in Iraq.

3) Disbanding the Iraqi army was also a mistake. The Iraqi army could have been a critical part of the occupation effort. The large majority of the Iraqi army was not distinctly loyal to the Baathist party, and it made no sense to completely disband it. Furthermore, any civilian indirectly associated with the Baathist party would be unable to find jobs in the new government. This left the former members of the Iraqi army unemployed and unable to find steady employment for the foreseeable future. To make this situation even worse, U.S. did not have enough manpower to secure the cities, catch high level Baathists, and guard all of the old Iraqi army depots at once. I remember seeing reports where Iraqi's were walking out of old army depots with AK-47s, mortars, and machine guns virtually unopposed.

How Iraq eventually turns out will be essential for American security in the future, however, the United States should not guarantee an open ended commitment to the current Iraqi government. The US cannot fix the problems in Iraq alone, Iraqis will eventually have to secure their own future. The United States should set a definite timetable for withdrawal, take serious measures to increase the strength and effectiveness of Iraqi security forces, and drastically increase the number of soldiers in Iraq until the withdrawal date. (Whether we could with the current state of our military is another story)

(I could say alot more, but I don't want to end up writing a term paper.)
policydebategod

Pro

PLEASE VOTE ON MY DEBATE PERFORMANCE AND NOT ON YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS!
PLEASE VOTE ON MY DEBATE PERFORMANCE AND NOT ON YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS!
PLEASE VOTE ON MY DEBATE PERFORMANCE AND NOT ON YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS!

I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I AM PERSONALLY AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ BUT WILL PWN HIM ANYWAY!!! let's watch...

+ Iraq has WMDs (http://www.foxnews.com...) they could use those WMDs any second if they USA does not continue to intervene. If we did not intervene when we did, then Iraq would have used those WMDs on us. The many soldiers who have sacrificed their honored lives are a small (valuable but small) proportion to the billions that would die globally from a nuke attack.

+ Even if they do/did not have nukes they would have gotten them and used them if we were not in Iraq.

+ America has the ability under international law to help Iraq. The legal authority to use force to address Iraq's material breaches is clear. Nothing in UNSCR 1441 requires a further resolution, or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of force. A 'material breach' of the cease-fire conditions is the predicate for use of force against Iraq. And there can be no doubt that Iraq is in 'material breach' of its obligations, as the Council reaffirmed in UNSCR 1441."

+ What type of monster will allow the women of Iraq to continue to get raped, beaten, etc. The children of Iraq turned into soldiers, brainwashed, murdered, raped, etc. The tribes of Iraq to be ethnically cleansed?

+ "Since we began after September 11th, we do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad...And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and al Qaeda. The reports of these contacts have been increasing since 1998. We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapon of -- weapons of mass destruction capabilities...
-- Donald Rumsfeld

+ There is $5 trillion worth of oil above and in the ground in Iraq.

+ The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region.

- It has cost us four hundred and seventy billion dollars (to date), the lives of four thousand U.S. servicemen, and nearly forty thousand casualties.
+ Wars cost money, especially necessary wars. These terrorists will be after ourchildren's children's children and the line stops there only because we are in Iraq now killing terrorists and decapitating regimes.

-In addition, it has damaged our international prestige, critically weakened our armed forces, and strengthened our enemies in the region (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda).
+ This was inevitable. If we did not attack when we did, then we would have to attack later after we were nuked and the international prestige would be lowered then.

- Let me be clear, I am not "morally" against the Iraq war…I was not one of those na�ve people who watched Fahrenheit 9/11 (specifically, the scene with the kids flying kites and playing on swings in Hussein's Iraq) and believed it was an accurate depiction.
+ Thanks for the personal information. I think we all know you better now.

- Saddam was brutal dictator that should have eventually been dealt with…
just not until the US and our Allies had properly stabilized Afghanistan and eliminated the threat of Al-Qaeda (ambiguous I know, but you get the idea)
+ We cannot eliminate Al Qaeda without going into their home and finding them. We don't have magical levitation powers to lift them out. We had to find them and that is what we are doing in Iraq and we are/ have getting rid of/ gotten rid of terrorists and terrorist regimes.

- I was also slightly disturbed by the constant hinting of a connection between Iraq, 9/11, WMDs, and Al-Qaeda. There was no direct connection between the four. As much as I hated Saddam Hussein, he was not nearly as urgent of a threat as Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban.
+ Iraq has WMDs (http://www.foxnews.com...).
The terrorists came from Islamic nations and those Islamic nations have terrorists that we can find to take out.
+ If not Al Qaeda, other terrorist organizations are based in Iraq.

- Despite my problems with the war at the onset, I still believed that a good outcome was possible.
+ He conceeds that the War in Iraq is good. I win.

- Despite my problems with the war at the onset, I still believed that a good outcome was possible.
+ He conceeds that the War in Iraq is good. I win.

- Despite my problems with the war at the onset, I still believed that a good outcome was possible.
+ He conceeds that the War in Iraq is good. I win.

- The counterinsurgency doctrine states that to effectively occupy a country, you need one soldier for every forty or fifty civilians (480,000 soldiers in Iraq). Currently, the U.S. has one solider in Iraq for every one hundred and forty civilians. (approx)
+ This is old information. If you want all of our hard American work to go down the toilet then half do the job but if you want us to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible then we need to stay in Iraq and tke out the insurgency with as much force as necessary.

- In my opinion, the looting was a key stage in the "shift" to Shiite militias. During the looting, billions of dollars worth of equipment was stolen. The Iraqi National Archive, was set ablaze destroying virtually everything inside (even documents that were seven thousand years old.) I have heard reports of looters going to construction sites and using cranes to completely dismantle construction projects. Furthermore (continuing with the theme of toppling Saddam and leaving in August), U.S. soldiers were not ordered to stop the looting because they did not want to get deeply entangled in peacekeeping operations. This led many communities to turn to Shiite militias for protection against looters, and increased militia power in Iraq.
+ This is irrelevant. War in Iraq is still necessary.

- Disbanding the Iraqi army was also a mistake. The Iraqi army could have been a critical part of the occupation effort. The large majority of the Iraqi army was not distinctly loyal to the Baathist party, and it made no sense to completely disband it. Furthermore, any civilian indirectly associated with the Baathist party would be unable to find jobs in the new government. This left the former members of the Iraqi army unemployed and unable to find steady employment for the foreseeable future. To make this situation even worse, U.S. did not have enough manpower to secure the cities, catch high level Baathists, and guard all of the old Iraqi army depots at once. I remember seeing reports where Iraqi's were walking out of old army depots with AK-47s, mortars, and machine guns virtually unopposed.
+ The Iraqi army was not loyal to the Baathist Party. They were lower to their own tribes, gangs and familes. This created a corrupt militia. Anyway, the Iraq War is still necessary. Stay on topic.

PLEASE VOTE ON MY DEBATE PERFORMANCE AND NOT ON YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS!
PLEASE VOTE ON MY DEBATE PERFORMANCE AND NOT ON YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS!
PLEASE VOTE ON MY DEBATE PERFORMANCE AND NOT ON YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS!
Debate Round No. 1
RDJORD

Con

"+ Iraq has WMDs they could use those WMDs any second if they USA does not continue to intervene. If we did not intervene when we did, then Iraq would have used those WMDs on us. The many soldiers who have sacrificed their honored lives are a small (valuable but small) proportion to the billions that would die globally from a nuke attack."

RDJORD: I don't know where to start. First of all, why would Iraq have used nuclear or chemical weapons on the United States? It would have sealed the fate of Iraq both by the US and the international community. Second, that link to "Fair and Balanced" Fox New says virtually nothing. The munitions that they found were "degraded mustard or sarin nerve agents." Iraq had WMDs in the 80s and early 90s, everyone knew that. Again, I refer you to the CIA's final report in Iraq, which stated that there were no potent WMDs in Iraq (which has been published in several news sources http://www.msnbc.msn.com...). We haven't found any of these "huge" stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. Third, "billions that would die from a nuke attack?" Iraq didn't have thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at us….I believe that was called the Cold War. Finally, if Iraq was such a immediate threat and had WMDs, then why didn't Saddam use them against the invading American forces in 2003?

"+ Even if they do/did not have nukes they would have gotten them and used them if we were not in Iraq."
RDJORD: Again, how do you know they would have used them? It would have been virtual suicide to attack the US with WMDs. Also, using this logic, I'm assuming you're in favor of attacking North Korea, Iran and Syria also?

"+ What type of monster will allow the women of Iraq to continue to get raped, beaten, etc. The children of Iraq turned into soldiers, brainwashed, murdered, raped, etc. The tribes of Iraq to be ethnically cleansed?"
RDJORD: Note how I said that Saddam was a brutal dictator in the beginning of my first statement. Also, one could make the argument that during the sectarian phase, these exact same actions happened.

"Since we began after September 11th, we do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members…(break)…help them acquire weapon of -- weapons of mass destruction capabilities...
-- Donald Rumsfeld"
RDJORD: This is exactly what I'm talking about, statements like these which try to tie Iraq with Al-Qaeda. There is NO credible evidence of Iraq being tied to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. All the news agencies say it, CIA reports say it, the 9\11 commission reports says it…Again, I'm not going to waste my time finding all the different articles and quotes that contradict Donald Rumsfeld…Here is a quote from the former director of the CIA, George Tenet, which sums up all of them. "The Bush Administration could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period." Also, if Saddam and Al-Qaeda were allies, then why did Osama Bin Laden offer his "services" to the Saudi government after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq was a secular Islamic country and Al-Qaeda wants to establish an Islamic Caliphate throughout the region. They were not ideological allies.

"The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region."
RDJORD: I don't disagree with this. I said something similar in my opening statement. What is your point? This has nothing to do with whether invading Iraq was a good idea or if the war was mismanaged.

"+ Wars cost money, especially necessary wars. These terrorists will be after ourchildren's children's children and the line stops there only because we are in Iraq now killing terrorists and decapitating regimes."
RDJORD: Again, that is Afganistan and Al-Qaeda, not Iraq. You have yet to offer a distinct connection between the two. Wars that are NECESSARY (like the one in Afganistan) cost money and lives, this war was not necessary.

"-In addition, it has damaged our international prestige, critically weakened our armed forces, and strengthened our enemies in the region (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda).
+ This was inevitable. If we did not attack when we did, then we would have to attack later after we were nuked and the international prestige would be lowered then."
RDJORD: Again, pre-emptive strike doctrines are useless unless the nation in question is an IMMEDIATE threat, which Hussein wasn't and Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were. Also, you are mistaken about international prestige…if Iraq had nuclear weapons and did attack the US, we would have both international support and a casus bellus to attack Iraq.

"+ We cannot eliminate Al Qaeda without going into their home and finding them. We don't have magical levitation powers to lift them out. We had to find them and that is what we are doing in Iraq and we are/ have getting rid of/ gotten rid of terrorists and terrorist regimes."
RDJORD: Iraq is not Afghanistan. Hussein was not Osama Bin Laden.

"+ Iraq has WMDs (http://www.foxnews.com......).
The terrorists came from Islamic nations and those Islamic nations have terrorists that we can find to take out.
+ If not Al Qaeda, other terrorist organizations are based in Iraq."
RDJORD: I already addressed that article. Are you advocating going to war with Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Iran, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Omar, Yemen, and Pakistan? Each has groups and people in their countries which were classified as terrorist organization. Al-Qaeda attacked us, Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.

"He conceeds that the War in Iraq is good. I win."
RDJORD: Cherry picking my quote doesn't support you at all. I said the war could have a good outcome, not it was at a good time or was "good." Note my previous three paragraphs and the rest of what I said.

"This is old information. If you want all of our hard American work to go down the toilet then half do the job but if you want us to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible then we need to stay in Iraq and tke out the insurgency with as much force as necessary."
RDJORD: What? Your comment makes no sense. I was arguing that there needed to be more than 140,000 soldiers in Iraq at the onset…I also argued that there should be a troop increase accompanied with a time table for withdrawal…the counterinsurgency doctrine is "old information" from Bosnia in the 90s, which makes it all the more amazing that people would ignore it.

"+ This is irrelevant. War in Iraq is still necessary."
RDJORD: Iraq war was mismanaged, this fact is not irrelevant. It was part of my argument at the onset, if you didn't want to argue against it, you shouldn't have entered the challenge.

"+ The Iraqi army was not loyal to the Baathist Party. They were lower to their own tribes, gangs and familes. This created a corrupt militia. Anyway, the Iraq War is still necessary. Stay on topic.
RDJORD: The Iraqi army was not directly loyal to the Baathist party, which was why it was a mistake to disband it. The militias were created in the power vacuum left after Saddam Hussein was deposed. Why are you telling me to stay on topic? I created the debate.

To sum up your argument against...basically, the US had to go into Iraq because Saddam may or may not have had WMDs and may or may not have attacked the US through relations with Al-Qaeda, which he may or may not have had...strong argument.

So, you don't think that the War in Iraq has diverted resources for the actual hunt for Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?
policydebategod

Pro

RDJORD: why would Iraq have used nuclear or chemical weapons on the United States?
N: Iraq wants to hurt the Western nations.
RDJORD: http://www.msnbc.msn.com......). We haven't found any of these "huge" stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq.
N: Intelligence says that they have nukes. One bomb could be catastrophic to the American people. Why would we risj it? You cant answer that question. Why would we risk having ourselves bombed?
RDJORD:Third, "billions that would die from a nuke attack?" Iraq didn't have thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at us….I believe that was called the Cold War. Finally, if Iraq was such a immediate threat and had WMDs, then why didn't Saddam use them against the invading American forces in 2003?
N: Sadaam was in hiding and could not use the weapons and the government was leaderless. If we did not go into Iraq, we would all be dead. Nuclear wars cause other nations to nuke other nations and radiation. More people die than intended.
RDJORD: Again, how do you know they would have used them? It would have been virtual suicide to attack the US with WMDs. Also, using this logic, I'm assuming you're in favor of attacking North Korea, Iran and Syria also?
N: They would have used them b/c we invaded their nation and they are an irresponsible nation. logic is not present in theirinternartional decision making.
RDJORD: Note how I said that Saddam was a brutal dictator in the beginning of my first statement. Also, one could make the argument that during the sectarian phase, these exact same actions happened.
N: America is saving Iraq and you are allowing it. You conceeded that he was a dictator and was also brutal.
RDJORD: This is exactly what I'm talking about, statements like these which try to tie Iraq with Al-Qaeda. There is NO credible evidence of Iraq being tied to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. All the news agencies say it, CIA reports say it, the 9\11 commission reports says it…
N: Iraq harbors terrorists. We need to find those terrorists, Al Qaeda or not.
"The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region."
RDJORD: I don't disagree with this.'
+ He conceeds that without the Iraq War, terrorists would be emboldened
"-In addition, it has damaged our international prestige, critically weakened our armed forces, and strengthened our enemies in the region (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda).
+ This was inevitable. If we did not attack when we did, then we would have to attack later after we were nuked and the international prestige would be lowered then."
RDJORD: Again, pre-emptive strike doctrines are useless unless the nation in question is an IMMEDIATE threat, which Hussein wasn't and Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were. Also, you are mistaken about international prestige…if Iraq had nuclear weapons and did attack the US, we would have both international support and a casus bellus to attack Iraq.
N: You are saying that we should have let Iraq nuke us and then fite. This is fooolish. Terrorist organizations must be isolated that are being harbored in Iraq.
"+ We cannot eliminate Al Qaeda without going into their home and finding them. We don't have magical levitation powers to lift them out. We had to find them and that is what we are doing in Iraq and we are/ have getting rid of/ gotten rid of terrorists and terrorist regimes."
RDJORD: Iraq is not Afghanistan. Hussein was not Osama Bin Laden.
N: Other organizations are in Iraq without a doubt or ese who would be shooting at us?
"+ Iraq has WMDs (http://www.foxnews.com.........).
The terrorists came from Islamic nations and those Islamic nations have terrorists that we can find to take out.
+ If not Al Qaeda, other terrorist organizations are based in Iraq."
RDJORD: Are you advocating going to war with Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Iran, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Omar, Yemen, and Pakistan?
N: I rather it be those countries than a nuke in Washington.
"He conceeds that the War in Iraq is good. I win."
RDJORD: Cherry picking my quote doesn't support you at all. I said the war could have a good outcome, not it was at a good time or was "good." Note my previous three paragraphs and the rest of what I said.
N: The War in Iraq could have had a good outcome means it was a good idea meaning should be there. You cant spin your words.
"This is old information. If you want all of our hard American work to go down the toilet then half do the job but if you want us to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible then we need to stay in Iraq and tke out the insurgency with as much force as necessary."
RDJORD: What? Your comment makes no sense. I was arguing that there needed to be more than 140,000 soldiers in Iraq at the onset…I also argued that there should be a troop increase accompanied with a time table for withdrawal…the counterinsurgency doctrine is "old information" from Bosnia in the 90s, which makes it all the more amazing that people would ignore it.
+ We need to get rid of the terrorists at any cost. Sometimes plans change. Besides choose a side you go from war bad to war good idea to war good and must continue to an extent. i cant debate all three.
"+ This is irrelevant. War in Iraq is still necessary."
RDJORD: Iraq war was mismanaged, this fact is not irrelevant. It was part of my argument at the onset, if you didn't want to argue against it, you shouldn't have entered the challenge.
+ Are you saying the war is good but needs a new manager now?
"+ The Iraqi army was not loyal to the Baathist Party. They were lower to their own tribes, gangs and familes. This created a corrupt militia. Anyway, the Iraq War is still necessary. Stay on topic.
RDJORD: The Iraqi army was not directly loyal to the Baathist party, which was why it was a mistake to disband it. The militias were created in the power vacuum left after Saddam Hussein was deposed. Why are you telling me to stay on topic? I created the debate.
N: This is completely irrelevant. How does this prove the war is good or bad?
To sum up your argument against...basically, the US had to go into Iraq because Saddam may or may not have had WMDs and may or may not have attacked the US through relations with Al-Qaeda, which he may or may not have had...strong argument.
So, you don't think that the War in Iraq has diverted resources for the actual hunt for Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?
+ It has but it has diverted them to other terrorist groups including Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan.

We must be in Iraq or they will bomb us or allow a new dictator to show up who will inturn bbomb us and possibly be worse that Hussein. We need to be there. And we should have gone there because we have stop stop terrorists and stop ethnic cleansing, abuse and rape.
Debate Round No. 2
RDJORD

Con

"N: Iraq wants to hurt the Western nations."
RDJORD: You could have said the exact same thing about Iran, Syria, China, and the former USSR. Saddam may have been a paranoid egomanic, but he was not stupid. He could have foreseen what would become of him and his regime if he would have tried to attack the US with WMDs. Following your logic, the USSR wanted to hurt the West, so why didn't they launch nuclear weapons at the US, West Germany, France, and Britain?

"N: Intelligence says that they have nukes. One bomb could be catastrophic to the American people. Why would we risj it? You cant answer that question. Why would we risk having ourselves bombed?"
RDJORD: Intelligence SAID they had WMDs. We have yet to find any evidence of chemical or biological munitions or the "mobile factory labs" that were allegedly produced between 94-03. Iraq did not have nuclear weapons and they were not poised to attack the US with WMDs.

"N: Sadaam was in hiding and could not use the weapons and the government was leaderless. If we did not go into Iraq, we would all be dead. Nuclear wars cause other nations to nuke other nations and radiation. More people die than intended."
RDJORD: Saddam could have easily ordered his army or his henchmen to gas invading forces, even while he was in hiding. What you're saying makes no sense. "Saddam hated the US and wanted to attack us with WMDs the first chance he got."…."Well how about when we invaded Iraq to dispose of his regime"…"well, he was in hiding and couldn't order an attack." Furthermore, as far as I am aware, a nuclear war is a war fought primarily by nuclear weapons with optional ground forces. Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, and they certainly didn't have hundreds of nuclear weapons. So saying that "If we did not go into Iraq, we would all be dead," is just fear mongering.

"N: They would have used them b/c we invaded their nation and they are an irresponsible nation. logic is not present in theirinternartional decision making."
RDJORD: What? You just said above why Saddam didn't use the WMDs when the US invaded Iraq…it sounds like you are confusing Saddam era with post-Saddam era.

"N: America is saving Iraq and you are allowing it. You conceeded that he was a dictator and was also brutal."
RDJORD: Conceding that he was a dictator and he was brutal does not help your argument.

"N: Iraq harbors terrorists. We need to find those terrorists, Al Qaeda or not."
RDJORD: I don't know how I can make this clearer. Al Qaeda attacked us…Al-Qaeda was not actively operating in Iraq under Saddam.

"+ He conceeds that without the Iraq War, terrorists would be emboldened"
RDJORD: It is quite clear what I meant. Any country with a power vacuum would obviously embolden terrorists and increase danger to the American people. What is your point? That in no way implies that without the Iraq War, terrorists would be emboldened.

"N: You are saying that we should have let Iraq nuke us and then fite. This is fooolish. Terrorist organizations must be isolated that are being harbored in Iraq."
RDJORD: All of your arguments say the exact same thing.

"N: I rather it be those countries than a nuke in Washington."
RDJORD: Nice way to dodge the question. So essentially you favor attacking the entire Middle East.

"N: The War in Iraq could have had a good outcome means it was a good idea meaning should be there. You cant spin your words."
RDJORD: Your logic is completely and utterly wrong. Good outcome does not equal good idea. My position is quite clear, and your "counter argument" is virtually non-existent.

"+ We need to get rid of the terrorists at any cost. Sometimes plans change. Besides choose a side you go from war bad to war good idea to war good and must continue to an extent. i cant debate all three."
RDJORD: What are you talking about? I thought the war was a mistake from the onset because it had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and because it diverted resources away from our real enemy. Saying that Iraq could have become a stable country, but was squandered through mismanagement does not contradict my original position. Saying that an Iraq in anarchy will be detrimental to US interests does not contradict my original position.

"+ Are you saying the war is good but needs a new manager now?"
RDJORD: No, I'm saying that the war both a mistake and was badly mismanaged.

"N: This is completely irrelevant. How does this prove the war is good or bad?"
RDJORD: So you are saying that gross incompetence doesn't play a factor in the outcome of a war? Sure.

"It has but it has diverted them to other terrorist groups including Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan."
RDJORD: That statement makes no sense.

"We must be in Iraq or they will bomb us or allow a new dictator to show up who will inturn bbomb us and possibly be worse that Hussein. We need to be there."
RDJORD: Now that we are stuck in Iraq, we need to try and stabilize Iraq to the point where an Iraqi government can handle themselves. That does not translate into an open ended commitment of US soldiers for open ended length of time.

"And we should have gone there because we have stop stop terrorists and stop ethnic cleansing, abuse and rape."
RDJORD: No, not until we stabilized Afghanistan and crippled the terrorist organization which attacked us in the first place.
policydebategod

Pro

policydebategod forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
why do so many leftists misunderstand the term fascism?
Posted by SirJDKnightCroix 9 years ago
SirJDKnightCroix
War in Iraq was just one of the many tools of the corporofascist entity that exists in the United States.

The War was inhumane, unreasonable, unjustified and unconstitutional.

- J.D.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
The problem is, it seems like there is a false issue here. This (the winner and instigator) is not an argument against war in Iraq, it is an argument against occupation in Iraq, they are two different things.
Posted by Ahking 9 years ago
Ahking
Policydebategod - Some quick constructive criticism:

Be convinced you're right, but don't let it get to your head. Egotistical comments like "He concedes... I win" distract from the debate, which is supposed to be about an issue, not you.
Posted by Mdal 9 years ago
Mdal
Yeah I wanted to make an argument against you and then I thought about it...I would just lose completely. I just don't know how you debate that it was a good idea...

Anyhow other than that, what exactly is the proposition which the AFF is supposed to be arguing for?

Something like this? :
Affirms: The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was a good idea.
Or
Affirms: The US should continue to support the occupation in Iraq.

Or is it a mix?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
RDJORDpolicydebategodTied
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 tjzimmer 9 years ago
tjzimmer
RDJORDpolicydebategodTied
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 clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
RDJORDpolicydebategodTied
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 RDJORD 9 years ago
RDJORD
RDJORDpolicydebategodTied
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 yarni 9 years ago
yarni
RDJORDpolicydebategodTied
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 Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
RDJORDpolicydebategodTied
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 sg227 9 years ago
sg227
RDJORDpolicydebategodTied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
RDJORDpolicydebategodTied
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 tman1900 9 years ago
tman1900
RDJORDpolicydebategodTied
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 righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
RDJORDpolicydebategodTied
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