The Instigator
txgopkid
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
hattopic
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

We should stay in Iraq until the job is done.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,954 times Debate No: 1697
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (18)

 

txgopkid

Pro

A resolution was passed in October of 2002 in congress for the authorization for use of military force against Iraq. At the beginning more that 35 different countries supported the War in Iraq. Through all that has passed since then we should stay in Iraq until the job is done.
hattopic

Con

I fail to see the relevance of congress authorizing the use of force, but since you bring it up:

President Bush told Senators that Iraq had the capabilities to launch an attack on the US Eastern seaboard using chemical, and biological weapons. (1) Two years later it was clear to the Senators, as well as the US public that Iraq never had the capabilities for such an attack. The president misled the American public and it's governing body in order to carry out an attack on Iraq. (1)

At the beginning of the Iraq war the UN security counsel was directly opposed to US intervention in Iraq. (2) You assert that 35 countries supported US action, you fail to cite that claim, which leads me to question it's validity. In the invasion of Iraq in 2003 98% of the force was British and American. (3). Even if your assertion is true (which I don't concede), it would appear that only one country supported us enough to commit a significant number of troops. The Iraq war is nothing more than a unilateral conflict masquerading as a necessity for the people of Iraq. This is a prime example of the US hegemony intervening in other countries affairs falsely trumpeting democracy and the safety of US citizens, with an utter disregard for the will of the people.

But here's my main and brilliant arguemnt:

In your opening statement you say:

"we should stay in Iraq until the job is done."

This leaves me somewhat confused. What exactly is THE JOB? Since you failed to define it, I think I'll take the initiative. The job we had in Iraq was neutralizing a threat that we allegedly faced from the Iraqi government. A secondary objective was removing Saddam Hussein from power and establishing democracy in the country. We've done both those things, so I suppose it's time to leave. Since the job is complete I'm sure you'll support me when I call for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. Huzzah! The war is over.

Unfortunately some people don't agree with us. They think that we should stay in Iraq until the job is long over. For those people, I post these arguemnts:

1. Loss of life. To date 3,123 American soldiers have died in engagements with Iraqi militia and insurgent groups. But that pales in comparison to the estimate of Iraqi civilians killed in the conflict. It's estimated that upwards of 150,000 civilians have died as a result of insurgent attacks spurred on by the presence of US forces. (4)

2. Cost to the US. As of October 2007 it was estimated that the US had spent around 604 billion dollars. If troop reductions occurred but the US still had a pretense in Iraq up until 2017 the war would cost a total of 2.4 trillion dollars to US tax payers. (5)

3. Troop levels. Even if we do stay in Iraq, we currently have insufficient troop levels to control the entire country. To successfully keep peace in a nation-building country it's estimated that there should be about 20 troops per 1000 people in the population. Currently the US has just over 6 troops per 1000 population. (6)

4. Build up of anti-American sentiment as well as the number of terrorists. The Iraq war has been used as a recruiting tool for terrorists groups around the globe. (7)

5. Inhumane practices. Including but not limited to:

-The Abu Ghraib prison scandal, involving torture and abuse of prisoners.
-The rape and murder of a 14 year old girl by 5 US soldiers (8)
-The Haditha killings
-The shooting of civilians by the security company Blackwater

6. Iraqi citizens don't want US troops in their country. In a poll conducted in September 2006 7 out of 10 Iraqis supported the idea of US troops withdrawing fully within one year. (9)

7. This war is causing a decline in US soft power. In a poll conducted in January 2007 73% of people polled around the globe thought the US was handling the invasion of Iraq badly. (10)

Currently the US is policing a country at war with itself. The sectarian violence taking place in Iraq is resulting in the deaths of thousands of people, and the US is caught in between trying to keep the peace with insufficient numbers. If this country cares about it's troops, or cares about the people of Iraq, they would call for an immediate troop withdrawal. Staying in Iraq is bad for them, and it's bad for us.

Looking forward to hearing from you, my new ally in bringing the troops home.

-Matt

1 - http://www.fas.org...
2 - https://pastel.diplomatie.gouv.fr...
3 - http://geocities.com...
4 - http://www.iht.com...
5 - http://www.reuters.com...
6 - http://www.rand.org...
7 - http://www.nytimes.com...
8 - http://www.cnn.com...
9 - http://www.worldpublicopinion.org...
10 - http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
txgopkid

Pro

txgopkid forfeited this round.
hattopic

Con

Ah well, my opponent hasn't even been online since I posted my first argument, and I have a feeling he won't be back. Which is a shame, because I was curious to see what his response would be. But in case he does come back, I'll just point out that he conceded all of my arguments, which I'm now extending:

First and foremost that my opponent failed to define the resolution properly, and in doing so he left me the initiative, and, under my definition of the resolution, caused his position to be compatible with my own.

Also:

1. Loss of life.
2. Cost.
3. Insufficient troop levels.
4. Anti-American sentiment.
5. Inhumane practices by US soldiers.
6. Resistance of Iraqi citizens to US ocupation.
7. Decline in US soft power.

Since he conceded all of that a comeback would be very hard to make indeed, but I welcome him to try.

Hoping to hear from very probably long gone opponent (Actually I suppose he's my associate, what with our first round agreements),

-Matt
Debate Round No. 2
txgopkid

Pro

txgopkid forfeited this round.
hattopic

Con

I knew he wouldn't be back...

Alright then, I'd call this another disappointing victory, it seems that whenever people challenge me to debates the abandon them... It's very sad. If anyone sees this and would like to challenge me though, and stick with the debate, I'd welcome them too, there aren't to many debates in the challenge state, and I don't have the time to wait for a good one.

-Matt
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Wow, you are paying for this war? First off all Soldiers pay taxes to so our voice deserves to be heard. Second, I think the price of paying for something with your life far outweighs how you "pay" for the war.
Posted by hattopic 9 years ago
hattopic
I just remembered why I hated arguing online, because it's completely pointless, neither side ever comes round to agree with their opponent. So I'll stick to what I said, and I'll stop arguing with you, because there's really no point, though I will say this: I don't hate our troops, and I feel the best way to support them is to bring them home.

I don't think that the choice to stay in Iraq should be dictated by army privates, or even by army commanders, because the choice is really up to the American people, we're paying for this 'war', and we shouldn't keep paying out of our pockets because the troops want to stay.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
"
The Haditha killings were inhumane, and they were carried out by our troops, that's not really disputed, "

If its not disputed why are we talking about now? It wasn't inhumane. Yes it is sad that innocent people are killed in war, but you need to look at the fact that American Troops take as many precautions as they can to keep that from happening.

As far as being emotionally involved, I have been in the military for over 7 years now and it sickens me to see people like you that want to use OUR names in vain. And that goes to both sides of the issue. I am sick of people like you saying they support the Troops by wanting to bring us home. Have you bothered asking ANY Troop if they want to stay and finish the fight or not? Didn't think so. Fact is most of us want to finish the job. Why should I expect you to understand that?
Posted by hattopic 9 years ago
hattopic
Goldspurs-

The Haditha killings were inhumane, and they were carried out by our troops, that's not really disputed, however since they were acting under orders the marines were cleared of all charges, the marine that led the attack is still on trial.

And once again, I never bashed the military as a whole, I said some of our troops have done bad things you can't seem to comprehend that, I'm gonna stop arguing with you though, because you're overly confrontational, and seem to be way to emotionally invested in this.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Hattopic,

Actually thats not exactly what you said, and when you posted it in your debate you claimed the Haditha killings were inhumane practices carried out by our troops. You completly failed to show that almost every Marine has been cleared of the charges. Even though there is still ONE Marine possibly seeing trial, shouldn't you wait until he is tried before calling him inhumane? If he is found innocent do you think you should apologize?

Maybe you don't see the problem, but I do. You twist the facts to bash our military when you have NO clue what you are even talking about.
Posted by hattopic 9 years ago
hattopic
Goldspurs-

If you look at my previous comment you'll see that I said the exact same thing as you just did, charges were dropped for varying reasons, one marine will still stand trial. Could I have been any clearer?

And as for cherry picking facts, I was surprised mentioned it because the point of debating is to support your arguments. I'd hardly say that you "called me on it", as that generally implies that one did something wrong or immoral, seeing as I did neither, I don't see what the problem is.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Hattopic,

I did the research. Did you look at my link? Only one Marine had charges dropped for cooperation, the rest (minus the one who could still be tried) were cleared of any wrongdoing?

In regards to the cherry picking, yes you provide evidence to support your argument. Just don't act surprised when someone calls you on it, especially when you don't provide the whole story.
Posted by hattopic 9 years ago
hattopic
Goldspurs-

A little research shows that the charges against some marines were dropped in exchange for cooperation, charges were dropped against others for various reasons, but there's still at least one marine on trial for leading the platoon that committed the killings. (http://www.signonsandiego.com...).

As for my cherry picking of facts... I'm surprised you'd even bring it up. This is a debate, it's my job to find facts that support me, not ones that support my opponent. I suppose I could've incorporated the crimes committed against our soldiers into my arguments, but it didn't occur to me at the time.

And finally the voting. When I said that I was glad you voted for me it was more of a compliment than an insult. I was trying to say that I was glad to see that, even though you disagreed with me, you voted based on arguments, not feelings. When I said it was because of my opponents lack of arguments I meant it, if he had made poor arguments, or failed to rebut mine, I would've said the same thing. Try not to be offended.

-Matt
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Hattopic-

"No the marines weren't cleared of wrong doing, the charges were simply dropped in exchange for cooperation, the marines were never on trial, so they were never cleared."

Actually on one marine was cleared for his testimony. The rest were released because their was no evidence to show they were not operating in accordance with the ROE. Thanks.

http://www.cnn.com...

"Note I'm not attacking the US military, I'm simply arguing that some of the acts committed by people in the military were not humane."

If you are going to point out that a handful of troops committed acts that they WERE punished for shouldn't you point out that our enemy has slaughtered many women and children purposefully and they have commited attrocious acts against captured members of our military? Only seems fair.

You say you aren't slandering the military but that is exactly what you are doing when you cherry pick comments like that and don't provide the real truth, such as the haditha killings.

"Finally, I'm glad to see that you did vote for me goldspurs, of course I'm sure it's only because of my opponents lack of arguments, but at least you didn't vote on your opinion of me."

Even if the Pro provided arguments and they were weaker than yours I would vote for you. It isn't intended as a poll. I find it offensive that you would suggest that I only did it for that reason.
Posted by txgopkid 9 years ago
txgopkid
I apologize for not be apart of this debate, for personal reasons, but I agree with what you people need to stick with things.

Sorry

Thanks
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by slammin 8 years ago
slammin
txgopkidhattopicTied
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 polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
txgopkidhattopicTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
txgopkidhattopicTied
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 9 years ago
blond_guy
txgopkidhattopicTied
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 kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
txgopkidhattopicTied
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 txgopkid 9 years ago
txgopkid
txgopkidhattopicTied
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 govchapman 9 years ago
govchapman
txgopkidhattopicTied
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
txgopkidhattopicTied
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
txgopkidhattopicTied
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 mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
txgopkidhattopicTied
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