The Instigator
Rob1Billion
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
ericjpomeroy
Pro (for)
Losing
18 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: 2/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,806 times Debate No: 2618
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (16)

 

Rob1Billion

Con

I am against the war in Iraq, and I am looking for someone to debate. I am not really addressing the war in afghanistan here, as I believe that that effort was quite different then what is going on in Iraq

After 9/11, the shocked USA allowed Bush a lot of leeway that he would not have had if the attacks had not just happened. We went into Afghanistan to find the terrorists responsible, but going into Iraq was a totally different situation. The WMD issue has already been beaten to death by everyone, and it has been firmly established as a lie just to get us in there. OF COURSE the American people are going to let the president invade a country that they have just been told has nuclear weapons ready to shoot at us. This was a shameful tactic that the president used and blaming it on his intelligence committees for giving him bad info is no excuse, as he appoints those committees himself and he bears the responsibilities in this matter 100%. Bush lied about the WMD's and if you want to dispute that with me I will entertain your argument.

Let us talk about the people who died in 9/11 for a moment. I think this will give us a fresh perspective to judge this issue. Terrorists came into our country and killed them. I won't base my argument on "loose change" conspiracy theory. If we could bring those people back and ask them what they think of our situation, what do you think they would say? Would they be happy with the longest and second most expensive war in American history that has just emerged from their situation? Let me put it this way for those of you who just answered yes. In September of 2001, our country experienced a great loss due to middle-eastern terrorist activity. The rest of the world was watching. The world saw us take that hit, and they felt pity on us as any warm blooded group of creatures would. We had a chance to take that pity and use it for good, but instead we decided to strike back like some child in a school yard that just got punched in the nose. If GWB was a great president, he would have taken this opportunity to travel the globe speaking out about terrorism and, using the weapon that he was just given (turning the other cheek that is, like his good book talks about but *of course* republicans have NO intention of actually following), he could have wielded a far greater weapon than any nuclear bomb. The world knows our military is more powerful than the rest of the entire planet put together. The world knows we have enough nuclear weapon technology and fighters to carry them to annihilate the entire planet back into the stone age. We don't have to prove we are stronger by flexxing our muscles the way we are doing right now. If GWB was a great president, he could have used humility to show the world we are truly the greatest country of all time, because despite the fact that we took a heavy attack we are still strong enough to exercise humility and not lose our composure. The world watched us like curious children to see what we would do after the attacks. We could have been the most popular, loved country in the history of the world if we had handled the situation right. Our enemies would have a much harder time recruiting hatred against us if we had turned the other cheek, and in the spirit of other great men like MLK and Jesus Christ, we could have used that martyrdom to surge a great pro-western movement in the middle-east and everywhere in the world. Coming back to those who died in 9/11, instead of being martyrd like MLK and Jesus, all they have accomplished is starting a terribly immoral conflict that has no end in sight and will end at best with us tucking our tails between our legs and running home. Chances are great right now that the next president will be a democrat and will make us retreat from Iraq with nothing accomplished. Sure, we ousted Hussein, but in my opinion the man who replaces Hussein will be much worse than Hussein himself, and most likely WILL start using terrorism against us because anti-american sentiments are running so high in the middle east (due to the war) that the only sensible leader out there MUST be a dreadfully anti-american dictator that will make Hussein look like a nice guy. The victims of 9/11 could have enjoyed a martyrdom that would have had a utility that would have actually made their lives *almost* worth losing; instead they are going to have to settle for being the cause of a worthlessly immoral and inept war. What a shame. I feel almost as bad for how wasteful and meaningless their deaths have become then about the fact that they lost their lives in the first place.

If we do not learn from history's mistakes, then we are doomed to repeat them. England, greece, mongolia, persia, and Rome all fell because they couldn't handle the power of being the top nation in the world. Sure, we are not taking land from other countries, which is a wonderful thing, but we are still harassing our enemies with military might and once nuclear weapons start proliferating through other countries, like they inevitably will, we better have a different military strategy in place. It is safe to say that by the turn of the twenty-second century most countries WILL have nukes. We have established fully, despite what others may say, that a missile defense shield WILL NOT WORK against incoming nuclear missiles. Furthermore, incoming nukes on trucks and boats will be fairly easy to send, given the large number of them that go unsearched coming through our borders. You militaristic republicans are going to be the cause of our demise in this country, because there will come a time when we will not be able to protect ourselves from a nuclear attack. The only way to truly protect ourselves will be through diplomacy and charity:
1) make sure we are helping the rest of the world as much as we can, so that they depend on us enough NOT to want attack us
2) make sure we do not bridge religion and politics by keeping people like Bush and Huckabee out of our government. If we have a gov't full of religious zealots then other religions are going to be apt to want to attack us. This is necessarily true, due to the nature of religion. If I purport to know that I have a God that is inconsistent with someone else's God, then there is no chance for peace.
3) exercise virtue in policy in every concievable way so that other countries will be simply unable to disagree with the utility and morality of our practices. This includes environmental conciousness (our environmental problems affect other countries), confining our military to within our borders, and relaxing our immigration policies (paying welfare to mexicans doesn't cost half as much as the war does).
If we can step it up and start doing the right thing, we can avoid the inevitable nuclear catastrophe that is in the not-so-distant future. If we keep up the way we are now, letting the neo-conservatives spread our military around the world like butter over too much bread (thanks bilbo), then we are sure to fall just like greece and rome.
ericjpomeroy

Pro

If anything it is liberals who will get us nuked. You make us look weak and pathetic. Like walking targets. If we hadn't gone to war we would have looked like a bunch of whining chumps running crying to the teacher. Use the pity?? What the hell is that? We are the home of the brave, not the little sissy girls. I don't know if you were watching the news, but they were having parades in Iraq after 9/11. They loved it! Turn the other cheek? Don't try and use that bible thumping crap on me. I am not christ like, so I am not gonna pretend to be. I am a freaking soldier. I didn't join for the college money like some liberal sissy, I joined to help, and to fight.

I am not gonna try and spew stats and polls at you. I am gonna put the truth in your face. War is an evil, brutal thing. There is nothing civilized about it. But our soldiers are willing to put themselves in that situation in order to protect our people. There hasn't been a terrorist attack in America since 9/11. The quality of life has improved for civilians in Iraq. Try and deny that. Even if Saddam didn't have WMDs, you say: "It is safe to say that by the turn of the twenty-second century most countries WILL have nukes." Last time I checked Iraq was a country, and pardon me for saying but I believe the previous government in Iraq wasn't a big fan of America. Think the war in Iraq put their nuke program back a bit?

Some times when your the biggest baddest dude on the block you have to remind those around you. When you hit us, we don't turn the other cheek, we beat you till you can't walk anymore. Look at what happened in 9/11. They knock down a few of our buildings, we blow up a few of their countries. Imagine what we would do if we got nuked, they will never risk it. Strength and power are respected. Strong people don't want to use pity, they don't want pity at all. We aren't over stepping our bounds out there, we aren't claiming Iraq as our own. We are actually helping people, of course you don't see that. You see the Marines arrested on CNN for murder(cause of liberals that don't understand war), or another car bomb going off. You don't see he new schools or roads. You don't see the kids playing in the parks again. You don't even care. Your so fixated on Bush lying, so what? Presidents lie, that is what they do. The war was justified, and a statement to the world that America is not and will not be a target!

I am sick of you liberals crying about the war. You don't know crap about war. Wars aren't fought by liberals, they are fought by conservative patriots. Your not the ones bleeding in the battlefield. Of course there is the odd liberal that joins for the college money thinking he won't get deployed, then when he gets called up he wets his pants and does anything to get out of it, but the mass majority of soldiers are conservative. Don't talk about stuff you don't know about. Now go have your abortions, and protest some executions of killers. Leave the subject of war to warriors.
Debate Round No. 1
Rob1Billion

Con

Thank you for taking my debate.

Your macho perspective is quite invigorating, and I would be disappointed if my opponent didn't show as much... entusiasm...

I respect the fact that you are not going to rely on statistics, as neither am I. Statistics are heavily abused, taken out of context, and manipulated by the user to the point that they are often more of a hamper to the debate process than a tool. We will have a very good ideological debate without them.

I personally believe that we don't look weak and pathetic. Like I said, our army is bigger and more powerful than the rest of the world's armies combined. If all two hundred or so countries in the world waged war on us simultaneously, we probably wouldn't lose a single standard planes-and-bombs battle, and we could nuke every one of them back to hell for even thinking about it. I believe that flexxing our muscles, in the way that we are doing right now in Iraq, only makes us look tyrannical to the rest of the world. Al qaeda isn't stupid; they probably provoked us into going over there just to make us look worse than we are. We were doing a good job up until this conflict in the middle east and that small faction of western-hating racists probably engineered this situation exactly the way it is. The world hates us, anti-western sentiment is at an all time high, our own citizens hate their government, and the Al-Qaeda have created the precise scenario that is ideal for their ideologies to take hold in the middle-east. Now a Democrat is about to take the white house and pull us out of Iraq, and I shudder to think what is going to happen next.

Your noble intentions to join the military and fight notwithstanding, warriors are not, for very good reason, the ones who make the decision to go to war. Our constitution clearly says that "two thirds of congress" must vote for us to engage in a war like this. These congresspeople are not warriors, they are diplomats and politicians, and only they have the sound mind to legitimately lead us into war. Now I'm sure that you all know that congress has not authorized this war. There is a DAMN good reason for the founders setting up our government in the way they did, and somehow our president has bypassed the constitution and taken us in anyway. Bush continues to mock the constitution, and he deserves to be impeached for his actions (however that is another subject).

When I say "use the pity" I am talking about virtue. Humility is a virtue, and one we fail to employ effectively. After 9/11, Bush should have traveled to the middle-east as a diplomat and spoken out against the attacks. We could have conducted pinpoint operations, tartgeting ONLY terrorists, instead of invading countries the way we did. Iraq was not a terrorist sponsoring country. Saddam Hussein had nothing at all to gain from terrorism. Think about it. He had his own country to deal with. The very nature of terrorism is very counterproductive to the leader of a nation, isn't it? What did Saddam have to gain with all this? Are you telling me that a guy who is savvy enough to take over a country and hold it for 30 years is stupid enough to send terrorists to America just to have his country taken away and have himself hanged by the neck? Did he forget that ten years before we had invaded his country and rolled right over every defense he had? This is proposterous. We played right in to Al-Qaeda's hands. We should have sent our president into the middle east in the wake of the attacks, so he could have gathered support for our cause and we could have dismantled Al-Qaeda slowly and surely, using diplomatic and monetary pressure choke them out. If we gave one tenth of the money we spent on the war to help the peoples of those nations smoke out Bin Laden, we would be 90% richer right now and Bin Laden would be lying in a ditch. Sure, Hussein would still be running his country, but I think his country was better off with him than without him anyway. You will see that the next leader of Iraq will be a complete monster, and sure, you will blame it on the liberals for pulling us out "too early" (McCain wants to stay there for another 50 to 100 years), but you militaristic conservatives have to realize that you don't own our country. You don't get to use our military freely for an unlimited amount of time to do whatever you please with. Just because you are more militaristic, doesn't mean you have free-reign with our military.

No incidents since 9/11? Of course there haven't been. We stepped up our security in airports, so it won't happen again. That has nothing to do with the war. There wasn't much going on in the way of terrorism BEFORE 9/11 either, but you don't want to talk about that, do you? All you care about is what happened afterward, and you act like the soldiers in Iraq are the only thing standing between us and them. 9/11 was an isolated incident and it was specifically designed to make us look like tyrranical monsters, and it worked quite well.

Iraq's nuke program is irrelevent. Everyone will have nukes eventually, and trying to hold every country back from developing them will be like holding back a stream with your bare hands. We will need more intelligent reasoning to guide us through the next century than "lets invade and destroy every nuke producing country".

You are saying that Iraq is better off with us there, but I don't see that. We are holding them in limbo right now, and nothing good will happen until we leave and let them have their civil war. Sunnis and Shiites are going to have it out and they need to. What if Al-Qaeda came into the U.S. during our civil war and prevented us from fighting and told us that we are just going to have to get along and by the way we are going to be changing to THEIR system of government while we are at it. I'm sure a guy like you can empathize with that, at least. Kids playing in parks is not representative of us doing well in Iraq. The kids would play in exploded tanks if that was all they had to work with. Go ask those kids if they want you to go home and see what they tell you.

You say to leave the subject of war to warriors, but that is exactly what Al-Qaeda wants. They can play you hot-headed guys like a deck of cards. It takes an intelligent leader to weave through the deception and make the right decisions. The founders set our government up this way for a reason and Bush was able to use the confusion after 9/11 to abuse it and we haven't been able to stop him yet. But come this November, I think it is clear we are going to have a very big change of plans. Pack up your bags, soldier boy, your coming home whether you want to or not.
ericjpomeroy

Pro

Easy solution to the War in Iraq, don't vote liberal. Simple as that. Liberals are the ones getting Iraqis and American troops killed. If we fought wars with no concern to what the liberal community thought we would have been out of Iraq 2 years ago. But you guys are so concerned about the civil rights of the enemy that your willing to sacrifice innocent lives to protect them. I will say Bush screwed up in Iraq, for one reason, when he went in against the U.N., against the liberal population, he should have ignored you from then on, totally written you off, and let the Generals decide what happens in the war. Then the war could be fought right. But he got so concerned about what the U.N. thought and changed the way we fight.

If you want to win a war with the least amount of death possible you have to make your kills count. If we started using their religious fueled hatred toward us against them, this war would end almost instantly. If we went on TV, said "Ok, for every person you kill in a car bomb, or a beheading, we are going to take 50 of our POWs, wrap them in pig skin, then cut their heads off and put them on spikes." The first time we did that, bombings would stop, video taped beheadings would stop, all attacks in Iraq would stop. But we can't do that because the liberals don't want us to fight a war, the want to arrest Marines for murder! My friend is in Iraq right now working at a POW camp, 75% of his training was on how you can get arrested for mistreating the prisoners! I am not joking. There was things as simple as swearing at the prisoners. As far as I am concerned we should be able to beat them as much as we want. They kill any prisoners they take, why should we treat them any different?

You want us to look like punks. You think cause we are the toughest guys on the block we shouldn't have to fight? What if 9/11 was just a test? What if there were supposed to be more attacks? If we knew that the Iraq war prevented more attacks you would be singing a different tune completely. But we don't know, so we can only assume that the war probably prevented attacks. Don't kid yourself, our security may have been stepped up, but it is hardly discouraging. If you really want to sneak a knife, or a gun, or anything on a plane, you can if so motivated. They used to allow knives on planes with blades less than 6 inches! There wasn't a problem with terrorist attacks on planes. Where are the car bombs, and the suicide bombers here? England is getting attacked, France does too, why not America? Cause they fear us. But the more liberal we get, the less they fear us. Who cares if you have strength if we never show it?

I hate to burst your bubble buddy, but Conservatives control the Military, because we ARE the military. Liberals don't sign up for the military, they run away like Bill Clinton during Vietnam. We do have a voice and an opinion. We are the back bone of the Nation. I do believe Bush thought what he was doing was best for the country. Plus, liberals wouldn't want to go to war if china invaded. You guys would just start learning their language. You watch, if Clinton gets elected, our military will diminish. People will stop signing up, and those that are in now won't re-up. She will destroy our military.

Liberals are cowards that make America look weak. You care so much of what the world thinks, why? This isn't a popularity contest, and it should never be. We should act based on what france, germany, or England wants us too. We should act based on what is best for our country. Liberals will be the down fall of America if anything. Once too many liberals get into office, bad things will begin to happen. Our military will be severely diminished, our basic rights, like the right to own a gun, or the freedom of speech, will slowly but surely taken away, and we will be a defenseless country.

You say Al-Qaeda provoked us into this, yeah, they did. But I promise you they didn't expect a response like they got. We have taken out several of their leaders, taken a lot of their weaponry, and severely kicked their butts all over iraq. Think they are happy with things?

Bush going to the Middle East as a diplomat? That is funny crap. Terrorists aren't gonna be discouraged because Iran feels sorry for us, or because France is our new buddy. You just are afraid to fight. Your cowards. You do nothing but sit around and protest stuff you know nothing about. I am totally convinced liberalism is a mental disorder.

Every inch of our country has been paid for with American blood, but if you had your way, tyrants and warlords would own this world, and America would be Germany #2. You want Americans to be ashamed to be Americans. Bottom line is, we are in Iraq, we are saving lives, and if nothing else we showed the world we still aren't afraid to fight back.

Saddam was a terrorist running his own country and to say that Iraq was better with him in power is just ignorant. The world is a much better place with him gone. Also to address your civil war comment, Al-Qaeda wants to kill us for who we are regardless of what we do. Besides, we would kick their butt right out of our country after we stomped the liberals into dust.
Debate Round No. 2
Rob1Billion

Con

I think at this point we have made our arguments clear, and we are not exactly engaging each other as much as we are going our own ways. I have laid down my arguments in the first two rounds and there hasn't been a whole lot of direct response to them. You responded to half my points in your first round, and you responded to next to none of them in the second. I mean you did address them in an indirect way to some effect, but I don't feel that you have really turned any of my points on their heads and I would be pretty much reiterating my first two rounds by continuing the discourse. I think my argument has already been made and it is obvious that you just want to talk about kicking peoples behinds and beating them up and bombing them.

For voting purposes, I will end my argument right here. If you want to vote against me because you claim that I went off-subject after this point, then just don't read it!

I think I have been very professional up to this point with this debate, and I would like this chance to take off my gloves and return some of the bare-knucklers I have been sustaining from my opponent. This is for entertainment purposes only; it will not add to the discourse.

You say you are a conservative. I think it is time to do some bubble bursting myself, and let you know that conservative ideology is not compatible with your frame of mind. I know, all your favorite warmongoring politicians and media spectacles call themselves conservative, and they certainly do agree with you. But conservatism means to be conservative. Starting a highly questionable war in the middle east and keeping troops over there for longer than any other war in history is not conservative. Spending more money on this highly questionable war than any other war save WW2 is not conservative. Taking a budget surplus (from Clinton) and turning it into an incredible deficit (under Bush) is not conservative. Increasing the size and scope of government to interfere in people's lives as much as possible (the war on drugs, the war on homosexuals, damage to habeus corpus, USA Patriot act, anti-abortion movement) is not conservative. These are actually more liberal in ideology. What you are, my friend, along with your buddies Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, George Bush, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney etc. is a neo-conservative. A neo-conservative is someone who likes to think they are conservative and hide behind the name, but is anything but. A neo-conservative likes big expensive governments that interfere as much as possible in people's lives in the name of religious righteousness and military defense, but leaves alone the rich, the religious (well if you are Christian anyway), the racist, the rednecks, and the business owners. The neo-cons are conservative in some areas, like capitalism and gun rights, but overall they are just a problem to our society that we are going to have to deal with until someone comes along and fixes up their act. We fought a civil war against the rednecks already, and I remember my fifth grade teacher telling our class that he went to the south and they still have hatred for us "yankees" that messed everything up for them. They are still racist against blacks and mexicans and middle easterners and non-Christians, and if you look at the polls they have been fueling the republican party for the last few elections and by keeping the blacks hopeless and confined to the ghetto in the southern states, they keep them out of the polls and out of their hair. I would really like to show the rest of the world that us americans are not all rednecks, closed minded religious zealots, racists, militaristic macho men, fat, rich, lazy limbaugh listeners that only care about our own country and everyone else can go to hell. I wish our country represented virtuous, open minded and open armed people instead of fat and lazy but rich white people that are scared that too many mexicans and blacks are going to get in and mess everything up. I listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, and my favorite guy Glen Livet all the time. The other day, all these people did was spew statistics of how the non-white populations are rising and how dangerous it is and how we are watching the country we love fall to pieces because of it. They made it sound so bad that whites will be falling in percentages while mexicans rise very fast. I'm sorry, but isn't this more like Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany than anything else? Aren't these neo-conservatives representing all the worst historical stances ever imagined? From their overbearing military policies that they would have us spread all over the world, much like how Greece and Rome fell, to their White Aryan Nazi rhetoric. Ok I am done ranting, I look forward to you neo-cons attacking me in the comments section, come out and play.
ericjpomeroy

Pro

It doesn't matter what I say, liberals are not going to see where I am coming from. I actually had a discussion about liberals yesterday with a friend of mine who is a political science major and probably the smartest person I have ever met. He explained liberalism to me very well. Conservatives created liberalism, by building a country that is too easy to live in. The fat, happy, ignorant liberal front, was created by "warmongering" conservatives, by making America easy to live in. Liberal ideals come from not having to work for what you have. Generally not having to work for what you have, created the ideal that you shouldn't have to work for anything. Liberalism.

I have gotten way off topic as far as the war goes. I apologize for that. But liberals have been whining about this war from the get go and it is annoying. But the bottom line is, liberals will have a problem with any war that America is involved in. It doesn't matter, the reasons behind it, you will be opposed. Debating the war with a liberal is like discussing art with a blind man, you just can't comprehend it. They think the world respects cowardice. It doesn't. They think doing nothing would have made the people that died in 9/11 martyrs. It wouldn't. They think conservatives are warmongering, racist, nazis. They aren't.

Liberals are just cowards, afraid to fight for anything. They are just weak and pathetic. Luckily they are the just the loud annoying minority that believes whatever MTV tells them and votes they way their favorite celebrity does.

My points about the War were and will never be acknowledged by the liberal community. They are too simple, make way too much sense. The War in Iraq made America safer, we shouldn't care what the rest of the world thinks, Saddam was a danger to America, Liberals will be opposed to any war, just or not. Patriots made America what it is and will continue to defend it. The end.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TonyX311 8 years ago
TonyX311
Both of you need to learn when to use the word "your" and the contraction "you're." Eric, you lose because you spend too much time attacking the proponents of the belief and not the belief itself. A quick question. If liberals don't fight wars, why do people like Wesley Clark and John Kerry have war medals?
Posted by sethgecko13 8 years ago
sethgecko13
ericjpomeroy -

1) Who says I'm a democrat? I respect virtually none of the people in that ad.

2) That GOP ad is meaningless because all of those quotes were either old, or were claims made by people who had no access to the intelligence that the Bush administration had (and were thusly relying on the selective information the Bush Administration was leaking to the press - http://www.sourcewatch.org...).

3) Everybody didn't agree that Hussein was a risk; a few cowards looking out for their political careers did. The intelligence community didn't - and they were howling with protest the entire time the Bush Administration was ramping up for the Iraq war. Are you actually telling me you find Sandy Berger or Nancy Pelosi to be credible figures?

4) I can post links to YouTube videos too; here's footage of Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell confirming that Saddam Hussein was not a security risk prior to 9/11 (when the Bush Administration's fear-mongering propaganda campaign ramped up) :

5) The civilian casualties in this war are not less than any other war. Where are you getting that hilarious statistic from? Even if you take the conservative numbers of the administration, there have been more civilian casualties in this war than there were in the first Gulf War (and this war isn't over yet).

6) Some of what I said was opinion, but most was not. If you'd like me to source any of the claims I made - I'm happy to.

7) It's "you're" a coward, not "your." If you're going to descend into personal attacks, at least get your grammar straight.

8) I'm not "against America," nor have I stated any such thing. I'm opposed to some of the US's foreign policy because I think it prevents us from being a great nation. Hardly the same thing. Are you actually willing to go out on a limb and say the US has never done anything wrong in our foreign policy that you disagree with?
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
Eric, you are drawing much dissent because of your emotional ranting. Personally, I enjoy the analogies you are making because it not only strengthens my own argument but it is entertaining. However, I think you need to start relying more on evidence and less on emotion. I would like to recognize you for your courage on the battlefield, as I don't think any of the rest of us would have the balls to do what you do out there. But there remains a very thick line. That line divides courage from prudence. A military general, for example, could lose a war badly if he is TOO courageous, and not prudent enough. Prudence is a more basic, more important virtue than courage, as it is one of the cardinal virtues (prudence, fortitude, justice, temperance, hope, faith, charity). The fact that you are on here, sticking it out with all of us, is a very good sign that you are in fact very interested in doing the right (moral) thing. We are all interested in doing what is best for America. Maybe waging war in the middle east is prudent for america's safety. But maybe, just maybe, it is making us LESS safe. I would ask you to think hard about any and every reason you could imagine that perhaps we are not doing the right thing out there. I totally agree with you that there is a faction out there that wants nothing else than to see us all burn. But a direct assault on the general area is just not working. We tried it your way, and we are not making the progress would should theoretically be making. Perhaps it would be more courageous for you to fight against your aggressive intention towards those people in the middle east, who are just as much people as everyone in the U.S., and try and consider a more indirect approach. Let's formulate a strategy the towel-heads cannot predict. Let's be smarter than them for a change. Let's do what's best for humanity, and not just what's best for america. That is the only startegy that is going to keep america strong forever.
Posted by rwebberc 8 years ago
rwebberc
Incredible, absolutely incredible. If you really think all this world is about is pissing contests and name calling you've got another thing coming to you. The world isn't as simple as you'd like to think it is, and thankfully our foreign policy will soon be in the hands of someone who has a little more sense.
Posted by ericjpomeroy 8 years ago
ericjpomeroy
Even your beloved democrat leadership agrees, Saddam was a danger to Americans. Oh, and pretty much all politics comes down to a school yard pissing contest, in case you haven't taken a history class. Oh, and civilian casualties in this war are less than any other war America has been involved in this century.

Oh, sethgeko13, you may want to stand up if your gonna pull a decent argument out of your butt. Everything you stated is pure opinion which is the same thing you criticized me for in my debate. It is cool man, your a coward, which is why America will always be free, because conservatives are the backbone of America and we make up over 80% of the military.
Besides, you say your against America. Why should I listen to anything you say at all? The fact that you disagree with me pretty much tells me I am 100% correct in my argument in my debate. Cause if a commie coward disagrees with me, I must be doing something right.
Posted by sethgecko13 8 years ago
sethgecko13
Ericjpomeroy –

The principle problem is that you're reducing complex geopolitical issues to a schoolyard pissing contest. No one in the world contests the US's military supremacy. The international problems we're wrestling with are about the world's perceptions of US foreign policy (which is decidedly imperialist, and pre-emptively and unilaterally invading Iraq helped cement that perception among a vastly wider percentage of the population of the mideast).

You say that not invading Iraq would have made the US look weak. I wonder if you also think that's the case about our refusal to invade Sudan on behalf of the people being wiped out in the Darfur region; does refusing to intercede there because China backs the Sudanese government which provides them with oil make us look like "little sissy girls?"

...cont'd...
Posted by sethgecko13 8 years ago
sethgecko13
...cont'd...

In your first paragraph you say "they were having parades in Iraq after 9/11." Assuming that's true, there are two possibilities:

1) The parades were organized by the Hussein regieme and were meaningless, inauthentic exercises that did not reflect the opinions of the Iraqi people (in which case they do nothing to reinforce your claim that we needed to invade Iraq as a show of force to counter world perceptions; a theory further undermined by the fact that there were demonstrations in many other countries as well, such as Indonesia, and we invaded none of them)

2) The parades were authentic opinions voiced by the Iraqi people – which would mean that you're opposed to the US's stated mission in Iraq (which is supposed to be to topple the Hussein government and set Iraq up as an independent, self-governing state). If the parades were authentic – then that should mean that you're for killing the Iraqi civilians that expressed the sentiment.

In either event – the reason so many people around the world loved the attacks of 9/11 is that the US finally got a small taste of the violence and destruction it has visited on the rest of the world for the past few decades (if not centuries). It's not improbable to think that people who were once subjected to violence from US-backed death squads, or whose governments were toppled by US militarism (like Iran in the 1950s) would enjoy seeing us get a taste of our own medicine.

...cont'd...
Posted by sethgecko13 8 years ago
sethgecko13
...cont'd...

The interesting thing about your claims about nuclear weapons is that you're worried about nuclear weapons – yet the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq took the focus and resources away from tracking down the nuclear weapons we already know exist in breakaway former Soviet states. As a tactical move, I would think that it would be more productive to focus on the bird in the hand over the two in the bush.

Stats and polls are a component of the truth. The fact that you've experienced combat no more qualifies you as an arbiter of truth on the topic of war than a lightning strike victim is qualified to claim status as a meteorologist. No one here is disparaging or even discussing the US soldiers – so don't hide behind them when you're vomiting up platitudes. What we're talking about is the overall strategy and the small cadre of people in power who determine that strategy. The troops are simply doing what they're told – and they're not responsible for the strategy crafted in the smoke-filled room.

There HAVE been terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 so your claim that rampant US militarism is a tonic to discourage violence against US civilians is utter garbage. Have you forgotten about the anthrax letters? The perpetrator of that terrorist campaign remains free to this day. Moreover, there have been drastic increases worldwide in terrorist attacks committed against US interests abroad (which are easier to strike). Why would terrorists bother to travel all the way to the US when we've put so many precious resources (including US lives) within their reach in the mideast?

...cont'd...
Posted by sethgecko13 8 years ago
sethgecko13
...cont'd...

Anyone can EASILY dispute your claim that life for the Iraqi civilians is better now than under Saddam. In addition to the public perception polls that contradict that claim, there are the empirical facts: even if you take the conservative estimates of civilian deaths published by the US government (which cooks the books to keep the counts down) they're higher than they were under Hussein (ESPECIALLY if compared to the period when Iraqis weren't dying of starvation during the period of sanctions after the first gulf war). Elsewhere, the electricity grid five years later is still less reliable than it was when Hussein was in power. The infrastructure is a far worse mess than it was under Hussein, and municipal systems like sewage are also worse off. Your claims about new schools or roads are meaningless because they're being destroyed at an equivalent rate – or in Afghanistan, children can't learn at the schools because the Taliban has regained its former strength and is able to close or strictly control the schools we're building.

The Iraqi nuclear program was nonexistent – so to claim that we set a nonexistent program back is ludicrous. Meanwhile, with all of the resources we've invested in Iraq (and the jeopardy these unpaid-for expenses have put our economy in) – we're in a very poor position to use other key diplomatic levers to discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world (like in Iran).

...cont'd...
Posted by sethgecko13 8 years ago
sethgecko13
...cont'd...

Your claim that "we blow up a few of their countries" in response to 9/11 is curious. Who is the "they" that you're talking about? The vast majority of 9/11 hijackers (as well as the people who orchestrated the attacks) are Saudi – and yet we're just as cozy with Saudi Arabia as we ever were. Even if you look at al Qaeda broadly – they owe no allegiance to any one state. What you're talking about is collective punishment which is a war crime. The fact that a few brown people attacked us doesn't make it open season on all brown people.

Practically, if your absurd claims about brute strength were true – our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan should have effectively shut down much of the terrorist activity in the region – and yet it's worse than ever. Al Qaeda has completely reconstituted itself, and the Taliban is as strong as ever (according to the US government; hardly a ‘liberal' source). Worse – we now have new terrorist groups to worry about, and thousands more people are flocking to join the movement against our presence in the region.

The war was not justified, the world now sees how stupid the US is capable of being which has lessened our influence in the world (to say nothing of our lessened economic influence from the financial straits the Iraq war has put us in) – and the Bush Administration has the gall to sing the same war-mongering tune about Iran in spite of its own intelligence undermining its claims about the nonexistent threat of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

There are plenty of warriors and soldiers who have bled on the battlefield who disagree whole-heartedly with the statements you're making; and they're starting to organize. Favor for the war has steadily fallen among soldiers (who are traditionally a very conservative, pro-war crowd):

http://www.vaiw.org...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by cbass28 7 years ago
cbass28
Rob1BillionericjpomeroyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Rob1BillionericjpomeroyTied
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 Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Rob1BillionericjpomeroyTied
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 TonyX311 8 years ago
TonyX311
Rob1BillionericjpomeroyTied
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 scottynewins 8 years ago
scottynewins
Rob1BillionericjpomeroyTied
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 kristiepomeroy 8 years ago
kristiepomeroy
Rob1BillionericjpomeroyTied
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 8 years ago
sluggerjal
Rob1BillionericjpomeroyTied
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 blond_guy 8 years ago
blond_guy
Rob1BillionericjpomeroyTied
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 Belladonda 8 years ago
Belladonda
Rob1BillionericjpomeroyTied
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 rwebberc 8 years ago
rwebberc
Rob1BillionericjpomeroyTied
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