Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Al Qaeda continues to rise.

ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 8:48:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yesterday, the Al Qaeda affiliation in Iraq and Syria known as the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) took complete control of the Iraqi city of Fallujah from the Iraqi Maliki lead government. A city long held secure by the US military after Marines captured it during the bloodiest battle of the Iraqi war in 2004. After all the BS we have been feed about how Al Qaeda being decimated and on the run and how since Bin Laden is dead they are unorganized and left without a mission. With all the talk about how the war on terror is almost over and how 2 years ago was the right time to pull our troops out of Iraq. What does this incident say to you all? It's 2014 and we are supposed to be withdrawing from Afghanistan this year. Maybe we should rethink that? Thoughts anyone?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

I think pulling out will reap some benefits--though they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 2:30:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

Can't say I quite agree with you there, though you aren't necessarily wrong. Of course the wars created a larger amount of anti American sentiment and aggression and of corse more people joined these various groups do to US action but how is this different then any other war ever fought by anyone? Through out the wars of history when two sides wage conflict with one another do the two sides not develop a natural animosity towards one another? Is their ability to recruit followers and soldiers any different then ours? You hear all the time people say "well our being there only increases the number of people who join them". So? Do we not also recruit large numbers of people during times of war? What's the difference I ask? Any way now I'm rambling. So anyway as I said earlier of course there was an increase in hatred towards the US due solely towards the wars however the larger threat here is radical Islamization and this has been going on for centuries long before the US became involved and the recent explosion in radical Islamization would have happened regardless of wether the wars happened or not. And so this threat can't really be blamed on the US.

But to get back to Al Qaeda I think that it was because we pulled out before it was time that they are now regaining power. It's undeniable that when we were active in both countries we were killing them by the 10s of thousands and killing thier leadership left and right. And when we were active in both wars they were at their weakest. Now that we are withdrawing from the area and are giving them more breathing room are they able to regroup and of course rise back up.

I think pulling out will reap some benefits- they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

I'm curious as to what you believe some of these long term benefits will be. As for the rest of that paragraph I totally agree.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 3:38:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
the larger threat here is radical Islamization and this has been going on for centuries long before the US became involved and the recent explosion in radical Islamization would have happened regardless of wether the wars happened or not. And so this threat can't really be blamed on the US.

Define "Radical Islamization", and be aware the US has been involved in the Middle-East since WW2.

Based on the positions of these "radical" Islamist groups, I think its quite easy to blame the US for their "threat" (with some help from Russia).
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 4:17:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 2:30:54 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

Can't say I quite agree with you there, though you aren't necessarily wrong. Of course the wars created a larger amount of anti American sentiment and aggression and of corse more people joined these various groups do to US action but how is this different then any other war ever fought by anyone? Through out the wars of history when two sides wage conflict with one another do the two sides not develop a natural animosity towards one another? Is their ability to recruit followers and soldiers any different then ours? You hear all the time people say "well our being there only increases the number of people who join them". So? Do we not also recruit large numbers of people during times of war? What's the difference I ask? Any way now I'm rambling. So anyway as I said earlier of course there was an increase in hatred towards the US due solely towards the wars however the larger threat here is radical Islamization and this has been going on for centuries long before the US became involved and the recent explosion in radical Islamization would have happened regardless of wether the wars happened or not. And so this threat can't really be blamed on the US.

But to get back to Al Qaeda I think that it was because we pulled out before it was time that they are now regaining power. It's undeniable that when we were active in both countries we were killing them by the 10s of thousands and killing thier leadership left and right. And when we were active in both wars they were at their weakest. Now that we are withdrawing from the area and are giving them more breathing room are they able to regroup and of course rise back up.

It's not just about al-Qaeda's recruitment--it's also about governmental oversight. Saddam, as much of a totalitarian as he was, was better able to control al-Qaeda than the current Iraqi government ever was. It also give al-Qaeda publicity. Look at the groups now active in Mali and the Philippines that didn't exist or weren't as active before the wars. The war has turned al-Qaeda from a backwater militant groups into a global movement.

I think pulling out will reap some benefits- they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

I'm curious as to what you believe some of these long term benefits will be. As for the rest of that paragraph I totally agree.

Benefits to our economy, to our world image, to reducing the influence of private companies on military life, etc.

Keep in mind, being caught in a terrorist attack is extremely unlikely, and so it seems ridiculous to fight a war against terrorists when the threat they pose is so numerically small. It's not pragmatic--it's emotional.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 3:51:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made for that... the logic of that argument reduces to something like "Because the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, anti-American sentiment rose which served as a recruiting/fundraising impetus for Al Qaeda, which increased AQ's numbers and financial strength."

I think the reason people buy that logic is because they assume that people are inherently prone to retaliate when attacked, and they then assume that it happened. However, even if AQ's numbers/strength increased after the United States invaded, the strength of their resistance and their competence to use that strength is not superior to that of the US military and intelligence community. Moreover, the only time that we actually see things like this latest city seizure is because the US has been scaling down military operations in the region since Obama was elected without leaving a functioning infrastructure. Essentially, what Obama is doing to Iraq is politically akin taking a premature baby out of the incubator before it can live on its own.

I think pulling out will reap some benefits--though they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

There will be some short term benefits to pulling out of Iraq, and the short term benefits will most likely be reduced animosity towards Washington (however fleeting) and a reduced financial commitment to nation building abroad. That will also be a long term benefit, but the long term cost of this can't be ignored. Essentially, the United States is going to leave a power vacuum in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan too) that will open up that entire region to whoever is willing to kill the most people to rule. Most likely, that's going to be some governmentally sponsored terrorist network that comes into power in the US's absence -sort of like was the case in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out in the 1990s. But even still, it's become explicitly clear that nation building isn't something the American people have the integrity to bear.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 7:56:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 3:51:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made for that... the logic of that argument reduces to something like "Because the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, anti-American sentiment rose which served as a recruiting/fundraising impetus for Al Qaeda, which increased AQ's numbers and financial strength."

I think the reason people buy that logic is because they assume that people are inherently prone to retaliate when attacked, and they then assume that it happened. However, even if AQ's numbers/strength increased after the United States invaded, the strength of their resistance and their competence to use that strength is not superior to that of the US military and intelligence community. Moreover, the only time that we actually see things like this latest city seizure is because the US has been scaling down military operations in the region since Obama was elected without leaving a functioning infrastructure. Essentially, what Obama is doing to Iraq is politically akin taking a premature baby out of the incubator before it can live on its own.

I think pulling out will reap some benefits--though they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

There will be some short term benefits to pulling out of Iraq, and the short term benefits will most likely be reduced animosity towards Washington (however fleeting) and a reduced financial commitment to nation building abroad. That will also be a long term benefit, but the long term cost of this can't be ignored. Essentially, the United States is going to leave a power vacuum in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan too) that will open up that entire region to whoever is willing to kill the most people to rule. Most likely, that's going to be some governmentally sponsored terrorist network that comes into power in the US's absence -sort of like was the case in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out in the 1990s. But even still, it's become explicitly clear that nation building isn't something the American people have the integrity to bear.

It's not the anti-Americanism that has made al-Qaeda stronger.

Saddam successfully kept al-Qaeda out of Iraq for years. America came in, destroyed the governmental infrastructure, ripped open old wounds, etc. and left an incompetent administration in place.

Obviously, Saddam was a cruel vicious, bigot who deserves to rot in hell, but America did have a duty to build a more stable governmental infrastructure before it pulled out. Because the existing administration is so weak, they're unable to stop al-Qaeda from proliferating.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 7:59:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 7:56:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/5/2014 3:51:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made for that... the logic of that argument reduces to something like "Because the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, anti-American sentiment rose which served as a recruiting/fundraising impetus for Al Qaeda, which increased AQ's numbers and financial strength."

I think the reason people buy that logic is because they assume that people are inherently prone to retaliate when attacked, and they then assume that it happened. However, even if AQ's numbers/strength increased after the United States invaded, the strength of their resistance and their competence to use that strength is not superior to that of the US military and intelligence community. Moreover, the only time that we actually see things like this latest city seizure is because the US has been scaling down military operations in the region since Obama was elected without leaving a functioning infrastructure. Essentially, what Obama is doing to Iraq is politically akin taking a premature baby out of the incubator before it can live on its own.

I think pulling out will reap some benefits--though they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

There will be some short term benefits to pulling out of Iraq, and the short term benefits will most likely be reduced animosity towards Washington (however fleeting) and a reduced financial commitment to nation building abroad. That will also be a long term benefit, but the long term cost of this can't be ignored. Essentially, the United States is going to leave a power vacuum in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan too) that will open up that entire region to whoever is willing to kill the most people to rule. Most likely, that's going to be some governmentally sponsored terrorist network that comes into power in the US's absence -sort of like was the case in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out in the 1990s. But even still, it's become explicitly clear that nation building isn't something the American people have the integrity to bear.

It's not the anti-Americanism that has made al-Qaeda stronger.

Saddam successfully kept al-Qaeda out of Iraq for years. America came in, destroyed the governmental infrastructure, ripped open old wounds, etc. and left an incompetent administration in place.

Obviously, Saddam was a cruel vicious, bigot who deserves to rot in hell, but America did have a duty to build a more stable governmental infrastructure before it pulled out. Because the existing administration is so weak, they're unable to stop al-Qaeda from proliferating.

I fully agree that we had a responsibility to institute a new, stable government -and America's failure to do so is one of the great moral tragedies of our time.
Tsar of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 8:15:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 7:56:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Because the existing administration is so weak, they're unable to stop al-Qaeda from proliferating.
It's not only your current administration, nor is it surprising that this happens after America joins the party. Just for the info.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 8:53:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 4:17:30 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 2:30:54 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

Can't say I quite agree with you there, though you aren't necessarily wrong. Of course the wars created a larger amount of anti American sentiment and aggression and of corse more people joined these various groups do to US action but how is this different then any other war ever fought by anyone? Through out the wars of history when two sides wage conflict with one another do the two sides not develop a natural animosity towards one another? Is their ability to recruit followers and soldiers any different then ours? You hear all the time people say "well our being there only increases the number of people who join them". So? Do we not also recruit large numbers of people during times of war? What's the difference I ask? Any way now I'm rambling. So anyway as I said earlier of course there was an increase in hatred towards the US due solely towards the wars however the larger threat here is radical Islamization and this has been going on for centuries long before the US became involved and the recent explosion in radical Islamization would have happened regardless of wether the wars happened or not. And so this threat can't really be blamed on the US.

But to get back to Al Qaeda I think that it was because we pulled out before it was time that they are now regaining power. It's undeniable that when we were active in both countries we were killing them by the 10s of thousands and killing thier leadership left and right. And when we were active in both wars they were at their weakest. Now that we are withdrawing from the area and are giving them more breathing room are they able to regroup and of course rise back up.

It's not just about al-Qaeda's recruitment--it's also about governmental oversight. Saddam, as much of a totalitarian as he was, was better able to control al-Qaeda than the current Iraqi government ever was. It also give al-Qaeda publicity. Look at the groups now active in Mali and the Philippines that didn't exist or weren't as active before the wars. The war has turned al-Qaeda from a backwater militant groups into a global movement.

Oh of course it gave them bigger publicity, but it also got dozens of different nations to join together and hunt down and kill them by the 10s of thousands. If anything thier thier "growth" just means now theres more to kill. But as I already said, while it's true that the War on Terror did increase their "growth" by some degree, it's not like this wasn't already happing and that they were not already a dangerous terrorist organization with several noteworthy plots under their belts. The only difference between the war happened vs it not is that because the war happened we have the added benefit of, as I said, dozens of nations joined together in the hunt to find and kill them. Now we must all understand that the reality is that it is a job that most likely will never end. So the question should be is it worth continuing?

I think pulling out will reap some benefits- they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

I'm curious as to what you believe some of these long term benefits will be. As for the rest of that paragraph I totally agree.

Benefits to our economy, to our world image, to reducing the influence of private companies on military life, etc.

Perhaps. Although I believe that the world image part is the exact opposite. The world say and watched as the US carried out one of the most successful invasions and conquests of a nation in history with awe only to have that awe turned into hysterical laughter at how poorly we were at occupying and maintaining that control. How pathetic our "nation building" is, and how (most importantly) the American people are a bunch of lazy, cowardice, bastardized people who won't is much as lift a finger if they feel it will "inconvenience" them in any way. And it showed the world that no matter how hard and how awesome our military can kick a$$ all they have to do us hold out as long as possible tell out pathetic citizens give in cause cause their taxes went up 25 cents.

Keep in mind, being caught in a terrorist attack is extremely unlikely, and so it seems ridiculous to fight a war against terrorists when the threat they pose is so numerically small. It's not pragmatic--it's emotional.

Of course it is, however it still happenes and that cannot be ignored. It's like saying only so many people have their houses catch fire so why should we have a fire department?
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 8:57:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 7:56:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/5/2014 3:51:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made for that... the logic of that argument reduces to something like "Because the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, anti-American sentiment rose which served as a recruiting/fundraising impetus for Al Qaeda, which increased AQ's numbers and financial strength."

I think the reason people buy that logic is because they assume that people are inherently prone to retaliate when attacked, and they then assume that it happened. However, even if AQ's numbers/strength increased after the United States invaded, the strength of their resistance and their competence to use that strength is not superior to that of the US military and intelligence community. Moreover, the only time that we actually see things like this latest city seizure is because the US has been scaling down military operations in the region since Obama was elected without leaving a functioning infrastructure. Essentially, what Obama is doing to Iraq is politically akin taking a premature baby out of the incubator before it can live on its own.

I think pulling out will reap some benefits--though they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

There will be some short term benefits to pulling out of Iraq, and the short term benefits will most likely be reduced animosity towards Washington (however fleeting) and a reduced financial commitment to nation building abroad. That will also be a long term benefit, but the long term cost of this can't be ignored. Essentially, the United States is going to leave a power vacuum in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan too) that will open up that entire region to whoever is willing to kill the most people to rule. Most likely, that's going to be some governmentally sponsored terrorist network that comes into power in the US's absence -sort of like was the case in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out in the 1990s. But even still, it's become explicitly clear that nation building isn't something the American people have the integrity to bear.

It's not the anti-Americanism that has made al-Qaeda stronger.

Saddam successfully kept al-Qaeda out of Iraq for years. America came in, destroyed the governmental infrastructure, ripped open old wounds, etc. and left an incompetent administration in place.

Yes, because we pulled out to early which is what I'm trying to say was the biggest problem.

Obviously, Saddam was a cruel vicious, bigot who deserves to rot in hell, but America did have a duty to build a more stable governmental infrastructure before it pulled out. Because the existing administration is so weak, they're unable to stop al-Qaeda from proliferating.

Pretty much. And your right about Saddam of course but I just don't think it's a good enough argument. Are you saying that for the sake of "control" he should have been left in power? The US has one of the worse crime problems in the world and there's so much chaos and disorder due to things like free speech and religion and what not. So should we have one guy just come up and control every aspect of our lives and severely punish or kill anyone who disagrees, speaks out, or breaks the law? Just for the sake of order?
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 8:59:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 8:57:36 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 1/5/2014 7:56:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/5/2014 3:51:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made for that... the logic of that argument reduces to something like "Because the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, anti-American sentiment rose which served as a recruiting/fundraising impetus for Al Qaeda, which increased AQ's numbers and financial strength."

I think the reason people buy that logic is because they assume that people are inherently prone to retaliate when attacked, and they then assume that it happened. However, even if AQ's numbers/strength increased after the United States invaded, the strength of their resistance and their competence to use that strength is not superior to that of the US military and intelligence community. Moreover, the only time that we actually see things like this latest city seizure is because the US has been scaling down military operations in the region since Obama was elected without leaving a functioning infrastructure. Essentially, what Obama is doing to Iraq is politically akin taking a premature baby out of the incubator before it can live on its own.

I think pulling out will reap some benefits--though they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

There will be some short term benefits to pulling out of Iraq, and the short term benefits will most likely be reduced animosity towards Washington (however fleeting) and a reduced financial commitment to nation building abroad. That will also be a long term benefit, but the long term cost of this can't be ignored. Essentially, the United States is going to leave a power vacuum in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan too) that will open up that entire region to whoever is willing to kill the most people to rule. Most likely, that's going to be some governmentally sponsored terrorist network that comes into power in the US's absence -sort of like was the case in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out in the 1990s. But even still, it's become explicitly clear that nation building isn't something the American people have the integrity to bear.

It's not the anti-Americanism that has made al-Qaeda stronger.

Saddam successfully kept al-Qaeda out of Iraq for years. America came in, destroyed the governmental infrastructure, ripped open old wounds, etc. and left an incompetent administration in place.

Yes, because we pulled out to early which is what I'm trying to say was the biggest problem.

Obviously, Saddam was a cruel vicious, bigot who deserves to rot in hell, but America did have a duty to build a more stable governmental infrastructure before it pulled out. Because the existing administration is so weak, they're unable to stop al-Qaeda from proliferating.

Pretty much. And your right about Saddam of course but I just don't think it's a good enough argument. Are you saying that for the sake of "control" he should have been left in power?

Absolutely not. Once he was removed, the U.S. should have spent more resources on nation building and governmental development. That was it's major failing.

The US has one of the worse crime problems in the world and there's so much chaos and disorder due to things like free speech and religion and what not. So should we have one guy just come up and control every aspect of our lives and severely punish or kill anyone who disagrees, speaks out, or breaks the law? Just for the sake of order?

No.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 9:00:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 8:15:36 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/5/2014 7:56:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Because the existing administration is so weak, they're unable to stop al-Qaeda from proliferating.
It's not only your current administration, nor is it surprising that this happens after America joins the party. Just for the info.

Are you suggesting that the previous one was unable to stop Al Qaeda cause last I checked they actually did have AQ on the run, near decimation, 2 countries completely conquered and a strong grasp on our enemies throats.
And this happened after we left the party. How'd you miss that?
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 9:01:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 8:59:15 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/5/2014 8:57:36 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 1/5/2014 7:56:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/5/2014 3:51:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made for that... the logic of that argument reduces to something like "Because the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, anti-American sentiment rose which served as a recruiting/fundraising impetus for Al Qaeda, which increased AQ's numbers and financial strength."

I think the reason people buy that logic is because they assume that people are inherently prone to retaliate when attacked, and they then assume that it happened. However, even if AQ's numbers/strength increased after the United States invaded, the strength of their resistance and their competence to use that strength is not superior to that of the US military and intelligence community. Moreover, the only time that we actually see things like this latest city seizure is because the US has been scaling down military operations in the region since Obama was elected without leaving a functioning infrastructure. Essentially, what Obama is doing to Iraq is politically akin taking a premature baby out of the incubator before it can live on its own.

I think pulling out will reap some benefits--though they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

There will be some short term benefits to pulling out of Iraq, and the short term benefits will most likely be reduced animosity towards Washington (however fleeting) and a reduced financial commitment to nation building abroad. That will also be a long term benefit, but the long term cost of this can't be ignored. Essentially, the United States is going to leave a power vacuum in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan too) that will open up that entire region to whoever is willing to kill the most people to rule. Most likely, that's going to be some governmentally sponsored terrorist network that comes into power in the US's absence -sort of like was the case in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out in the 1990s. But even still, it's become explicitly clear that nation building isn't something the American people have the integrity to bear.

It's not the anti-Americanism that has made al-Qaeda stronger.

Saddam successfully kept al-Qaeda out of Iraq for years. America came in, destroyed the governmental infrastructure, ripped open old wounds, etc. and left an incompetent administration in place.

Yes, because we pulled out to early which is what I'm trying to say was the biggest problem.

Obviously, Saddam was a cruel vicious, bigot who deserves to rot in hell, but America did have a duty to build a more stable governmental infrastructure before it pulled out. Because the existing administration is so weak, they're unable to stop al-Qaeda from proliferating.

Pretty much. And your right about Saddam of course but I just don't think it's a good enough argument. Are you saying that for the sake of "control" he should have been left in power?

Absolutely not. Once he was removed, the U.S. should have spent more resources on nation building and governmental development. That was it's major failing.

Ok, justaking sure were on the same page with that. Totally agree.

The US has one of the worse crime problems in the world and there's so much chaos and disorder due to things like free speech and religion and what not. So should we have one guy just come up and control every aspect of our lives and severely punish or kill anyone who disagrees, speaks out, or breaks the law? Just for the sake of order?

No.

Gotcha.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 9:45:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm gonna jump in on this discussion here. You guys have very excellent viewpoint on the political side of things, so I would like to offer something on the ideology and history of Islamic radical groups and how they contributes to their actions and influence.

Islamic radicalization as we see in Al-Qaeda and similar groups has fluctuated throughout history. The first groups, small and not very influential, appeared during Muhammad's lifetime. They were the terrorists of their day, attacking small villages, robbing and stealing, murdering left and right, all in the name of Jihad. Muhammad waged war on them and killed them wherever he found them.

Roughly twenty years after Muhammad's death, they rose again, more powerful, with greater following. The managed to assassinate Uthman bin Affan, the head of the Muslim state. His successors Ali, Muawiya, and Yazid were able to quell the terrorist uprising.

The same pattern has repeated throughout history, each time causing outsiders to take these people and paint the whole religion with them, each time bringing hate and discrimination down upon Muslim minorities in non-Muslim nations.

How this happens is in fact a very simple process. In a deteriorating or fragmenting political situation, one or more horrible people see an opportunity to seize power. In order to gain support from the generally uneducated population, they grab onto the only thing that can stir up enough passion for their cause; they spread a radicalized interpretation of religion. The young and zealous join the cause, and viola! You have a terrorist group.

This happens to Islam far more often than other religions simply because of morbid coincidence. Since the earliest reaches of history, the Middle East has been the strategic hot spot of the world. Every single major empire in world history has invaded the Middle East. The political situation there is always fragmented, due more to the greed of outside nations than any true fault of its own.

Because of that, any religion throughout history that is predominant in the Middle East will have radicalized factions emerge. A simple glance at the history of the area will confirm this. Judaism, Christianity, Paganism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, all these have had radicals emerge from the Middle East and neighboring areas.

The reason Al-Qaeda grows stronger is because there is even more political fragmentation. The more deterioration in a place, the stronger Al-Qaeda is there.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 5:51:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 9:00:43 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 1/5/2014 8:15:36 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/5/2014 7:56:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Because the existing administration is so weak, they're unable to stop al-Qaeda from proliferating.
It's not only your current administration, nor is it surprising that this happens after America joins the party. Just for the info.

Are you suggesting
Don't ask me a question and answer it on your own.

that the previous one was unable to stop Al Qaeda
Irrelevant.

cause last I checked they actually did have AQ on the run, near decimation, 2 countries completely conquered and a strong grasp on our enemies throats.
I said that other US administrations have enabled terrorist groups to form elsewhere after US intervention in conflict. Not a critique of the former administration in particular.

How'd you miss that?
How did you miss reading classes?
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 6:19:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 9:45:35 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
This happens to Islam far more often than other religions simply because of morbid coincidence. Since the earliest reaches of history, the Middle East has been the strategic hot spot of the world. Every single major empire in world history has invaded the Middle East. The political situation there is always fragmented, due more to the greed of outside nations than any true fault of its own.
You don't think that the decline of the Middle Eastern monarchies and authoritarian regimes in the early 20th century didn't give room for destabilizing the region?

The reason Al-Qaeda grows stronger is because there is even more political fragmentation. The more deterioration in a place, the stronger Al-Qaeda is there.
Spot on. Al-Qaeda is like Burger King or McDonalds with franchises. It is not like GM with a central headquarters giving the orders for other charters to obey. There is no central headquarters with Al-Qaeda. That is why a protracted conflict is inevitable.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 8:15:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 2:30:54 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

Can't say I quite agree with you there, though you aren't necessarily wrong. Of course the wars created a larger amount of anti American sentiment and aggression and of corse more people joined these various groups do to US action but how is this different then any other war ever fought by anyone?

This is a problem. We should have anticipated our actions would have had this kind of impact. IMHO we suffered from poor planning that led to an extremely poorly executed occupation. Had the occupation gone smoothly, we would most likely not be talking about a resurgent al-Qaeda.

Through out the wars of history when two sides wage conflict with one another do the two sides not develop a natural animosity towards one another? Is their ability to recruit followers and soldiers any different then ours? You hear all the time people say "well our being there only increases the number of people who join them". So? Do we not also recruit large numbers of people during times of war? What's the difference I ask? Any way now I'm rambling. So anyway as I said earlier of course there was an increase in hatred towards the US due solely towards the wars however the larger threat here is radical Islamization and this has been going on for centuries long before the US became involved and the recent explosion in radical Islamization would have happened regardless of wether the wars happened or not. And so this threat can't really be blamed on the US.

But to get back to Al Qaeda I think that it was because we pulled out before it was time that they are now regaining power. It's undeniable that when we were active in both countries we were killing them by the 10s of thousands and killing thier leadership left and right. And when we were active in both wars they were at their weakest. Now that we are withdrawing from the area and are giving them more breathing room are they able to regroup and of course rise back up.

Personally I disagree. We lost the respect of the Iraqi people given how poorly the occupation went. In order to sustain an occupation, we would have to figure out how to re-earn that respect. IMHO it's akin to figuring out how to put humpty-dumpty back together again.

Basically, we had our chance and we blew it. Now, the Iraqis do not want us there, which is the main reason why we are not there (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...). We will have to wait for another opportunity to be able to justifiably move into the region again. In the meantime, we will have to figure out how to re-earn their trust and respect. That's a tall order after the botched occupation.

I think pulling out will reap some benefits- they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

I'm curious as to what you believe some of these long term benefits will be. As for the rest of that paragraph I totally agree.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 8:21:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 4:17:30 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 2:30:54 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

Can't say I quite agree with you there, though you aren't necessarily wrong. Of course the wars created a larger amount of anti American sentiment and aggression and of corse more people joined these various groups do to US action but how is this different then any other war ever fought by anyone? Through out the wars of history when two sides wage conflict with one another do the two sides not develop a natural animosity towards one another? Is their ability to recruit followers and soldiers any different then ours? You hear all the time people say "well our being there only increases the number of people who join them". So? Do we not also recruit large numbers of people during times of war? What's the difference I ask? Any way now I'm rambling. So anyway as I said earlier of course there was an increase in hatred towards the US due solely towards the wars however the larger threat here is radical Islamization and this has been going on for centuries long before the US became involved and the recent explosion in radical Islamization would have happened regardless of wether the wars happened or not. And so this threat can't really be blamed on the US.

But to get back to Al Qaeda I think that it was because we pulled out before it was time that they are now regaining power. It's undeniable that when we were active in both countries we were killing them by the 10s of thousands and killing thier leadership left and right. And when we were active in both wars they were at their weakest. Now that we are withdrawing from the area and are giving them more breathing room are they able to regroup and of course rise back up.

It's not just about al-Qaeda's recruitment--it's also about governmental oversight. Saddam, as much of a totalitarian as he was, was better able to control al-Qaeda than the current Iraqi government ever was. It also give al-Qaeda publicity. Look at the groups now active in Mali and the Philippines that didn't exist or weren't as active before the wars. The war has turned al-Qaeda from a backwater militant groups into a global movement.

Are you saying that it was impossible for the US to improve upon Saddam's regime? That a US occupation was bound to be worse than Saddam?

I think pulling out will reap some benefits- they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

I'm curious as to what you believe some of these long term benefits will be. As for the rest of that paragraph I totally agree.

Benefits to our economy

How? Oil is still above $100/barrel.

to our world image

Our world image is tarnished because we proved we cannot successfully and credibly occupy a country, something we were able to do all over the world post-WWII.

to reducing the influence of private companies on military life, etc.

No idea what you mean here.

Keep in mind, being caught in a terrorist attack is extremely unlikely, and so it seems ridiculous to fight a war against terrorists when the threat they pose is so numerically small. It's not pragmatic--it's emotional.

Are you saying that the best course of action for the US following 9/11 was to do nothing?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 8:32:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For reference, spot prices on Brent crude:

http://www.tititudorancea.com...

The "all available data" chart is telling. The US is by far the largest importer and consumer of oil. Our withdrawal out of Iraq did very, very little to alleviate what should have been the chief economic benefit to arise out of the US stabilizing the Middle East.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 8:37:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Finally, the rise in costs to oil imports for the US far outweighs the military costs of the occupation of Iraq proper. We got fvcked both ways, sideways, and everything in between economically.

http://www.bloomberg.com...

If oil costs $337 bln a year in 2010 with around $80/barrel oil, then before the war in 2003 when oil was around $20/barrel, imports would have costs less than $100 bln. This $200 billion per year rise in cost is only one aspect of the real economic catastrophe that resulted from our actions in Iraq, and withdrawing our forces has fixed none of that.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 8:48:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And I will add before any Bush apologists chime in, that in 2008, oil imports were $700 billion per year, i.e. during Obama's term, oil imports dropped dramatically from where they were when Bush left office.

http://money.cnn.com...

IMHO Bush should have been tried for treason. Anyone looking at what he caused economically would reach a similar conclusion if they cared about this country.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 9:44:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 8:21:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 4:17:30 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 2:30:54 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

Can't say I quite agree with you there, though you aren't necessarily wrong. Of course the wars created a larger amount of anti American sentiment and aggression and of corse more people joined these various groups do to US action but how is this different then any other war ever fought by anyone? Through out the wars of history when two sides wage conflict with one another do the two sides not develop a natural animosity towards one another? Is their ability to recruit followers and soldiers any different then ours? You hear all the time people say "well our being there only increases the number of people who join them". So? Do we not also recruit large numbers of people during times of war? What's the difference I ask? Any way now I'm rambling. So anyway as I said earlier of course there was an increase in hatred towards the US due solely towards the wars however the larger threat here is radical Islamization and this has been going on for centuries long before the US became involved and the recent explosion in radical Islamization would have happened regardless of wether the wars happened or not. And so this threat can't really be blamed on the US.

But to get back to Al Qaeda I think that it was because we pulled out before it was time that they are now regaining power. It's undeniable that when we were active in both countries we were killing them by the 10s of thousands and killing thier leadership left and right. And when we were active in both wars they were at their weakest. Now that we are withdrawing from the area and are giving them more breathing room are they able to regroup and of course rise back up.

It's not just about al-Qaeda's recruitment--it's also about governmental oversight. Saddam, as much of a totalitarian as he was, was better able to control al-Qaeda than the current Iraqi government ever was. It also give al-Qaeda publicity. Look at the groups now active in Mali and the Philippines that didn't exist or weren't as active before the wars. The war has turned al-Qaeda from a backwater militant groups into a global movement.

Are you saying that it was impossible for the US to improve upon Saddam's regime? That a US occupation was bound to be worse than Saddam?

I am not saying that the current regime is "worse" than Saddam. Saddam was obviously worse inasmuch as he was a brutal, mass-murdering totalitarian. Rather, the current government is completely and utterly unable to control its own country and to ensure internal security. The U.S. had a moral duty to ensure that Iraq was better equipped to self-govern before it pulled out.

I think pulling out will reap some benefits- they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

I'm curious as to what you believe some of these long term benefits will be. As for the rest of that paragraph I totally agree.

Benefits to our economy

How? Oil is still above $100/barrel.

We aren't sinking as much $$$ into the war; oil prices have decreased; and we are more able to redirect funds to domestic, rather than foreign, spending.

to our world image

Our world image is tarnished because we proved we cannot successfully and credibly occupy a country, something we were able to do all over the world post-WWII.

I think occupying countries is bad, period. But I agree with your assessment; it was the fact that we went into Iraq under false pretenses and that our occupation failed that we are so looked down upon. However, since withdrawal, we've been able to make modest repairs to our image.

to reducing the influence of private companies on military life, etc.

No idea what you mean here.

PMFs and PMCs.

Keep in mind, being caught in a terrorist attack is extremely unlikely, and so it seems ridiculous to fight a war against terrorists when the threat they pose is so numerically small. It's not pragmatic--it's emotional.

Are you saying that the best course of action for the US following 9/11 was to do nothing?

I am saying that the correct course of actions was NOT to wage war or to declare a ill-defined, overbroad "war on terror."
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 9:50:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 9:44:56 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/7/2014 8:21:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 4:17:30 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 2:30:54 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

Can't say I quite agree with you there, though you aren't necessarily wrong. Of course the wars created a larger amount of anti American sentiment and aggression and of corse more people joined these various groups do to US action but how is this different then any other war ever fought by anyone? Through out the wars of history when two sides wage conflict with one another do the two sides not develop a natural animosity towards one another? Is their ability to recruit followers and soldiers any different then ours? You hear all the time people say "well our being there only increases the number of people who join them". So? Do we not also recruit large numbers of people during times of war? What's the difference I ask? Any way now I'm rambling. So anyway as I said earlier of course there was an increase in hatred towards the US due solely towards the wars however the larger threat here is radical Islamization and this has been going on for centuries long before the US became involved and the recent explosion in radical Islamization would have happened regardless of wether the wars happened or not. And so this threat can't really be blamed on the US.

But to get back to Al Qaeda I think that it was because we pulled out before it was time that they are now regaining power. It's undeniable that when we were active in both countries we were killing them by the 10s of thousands and killing thier leadership left and right. And when we were active in both wars they were at their weakest. Now that we are withdrawing from the area and are giving them more breathing room are they able to regroup and of course rise back up.

It's not just about al-Qaeda's recruitment--it's also about governmental oversight. Saddam, as much of a totalitarian as he was, was better able to control al-Qaeda than the current Iraqi government ever was. It also give al-Qaeda publicity. Look at the groups now active in Mali and the Philippines that didn't exist or weren't as active before the wars. The war has turned al-Qaeda from a backwater militant groups into a global movement.

Are you saying that it was impossible for the US to improve upon Saddam's regime? That a US occupation was bound to be worse than Saddam?

I am not saying that the current regime is "worse" than Saddam. Saddam was obviously worse inasmuch as he was a brutal, mass-murdering totalitarian. Rather, the current government is completely and utterly unable to control its own country and to ensure internal security. The U.S. had a moral duty to ensure that Iraq was better equipped to self-govern before it pulled out.

You did not answer the question. Do you think the US could have done better than what is currently in place in Iraq?

Also, since you brought it up in your response, do you agree with ararmer that we pulled out "too early"?

I think pulling out will reap some benefits- they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

I'm curious as to what you believe some of these long term benefits will be. As for the rest of that paragraph I totally agree.

Benefits to our economy

How? Oil is still above $100/barrel.

We aren't sinking as much $$$ into the war; oil prices have decreased; and we are more able to redirect funds to domestic, rather than foreign, spending.

Did you look at my other 3 comments parsing out the economic impact of oil prices? The rise in oil imports compared to pre-war levels still far outstrip annual expenditures of the Iraq war even at its height.

to our world image

Our world image is tarnished because we proved we cannot successfully and credibly occupy a country, something we were able to do all over the world post-WWII.

I think occupying countries is bad, period. But I agree with your assessment; it was the fact that we went into Iraq under false pretenses and that our occupation failed that we are so looked down upon. However, since withdrawal, we've been able to make modest repairs to our image.

Fair enough.

to reducing the influence of private companies on military life, etc.

No idea what you mean here.

PMFs and PMCs.

lol, still no idea what you mean. =)

Keep in mind, being caught in a terrorist attack is extremely unlikely, and so it seems ridiculous to fight a war against terrorists when the threat they pose is so numerically small. It's not pragmatic--it's emotional.

Are you saying that the best course of action for the US following 9/11 was to do nothing?

I am saying that the correct course of actions was NOT to wage war or to declare a ill-defined, overbroad "war on terror."

I will repeat my question.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 9:54:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 9:50:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/7/2014 9:44:56 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/7/2014 8:21:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/4/2014 4:17:30 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 2:30:54 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:10:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I think it is possible that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan caused Al-Qaeda to become stronger than it was prior.

Can't say I quite agree with you there, though you aren't necessarily wrong. Of course the wars created a larger amount of anti American sentiment and aggression and of corse more people joined these various groups do to US action but how is this different then any other war ever fought by anyone? Through out the wars of history when two sides wage conflict with one another do the two sides not develop a natural animosity towards one another? Is their ability to recruit followers and soldiers any different then ours? You hear all the time people say "well our being there only increases the number of people who join them". So? Do we not also recruit large numbers of people during times of war? What's the difference I ask? Any way now I'm rambling. So anyway as I said earlier of course there was an increase in hatred towards the US due solely towards the wars however the larger threat here is radical Islamization and this has been going on for centuries long before the US became involved and the recent explosion in radical Islamization would have happened regardless of wether the wars happened or not. And so this threat can't really be blamed on the US.

But to get back to Al Qaeda I think that it was because we pulled out before it was time that they are now regaining power. It's undeniable that when we were active in both countries we were killing them by the 10s of thousands and killing thier leadership left and right. And when we were active in both wars they were at their weakest. Now that we are withdrawing from the area and are giving them more breathing room are they able to regroup and of course rise back up.

It's not just about al-Qaeda's recruitment--it's also about governmental oversight. Saddam, as much of a totalitarian as he was, was better able to control al-Qaeda than the current Iraqi government ever was. It also give al-Qaeda publicity. Look at the groups now active in Mali and the Philippines that didn't exist or weren't as active before the wars. The war has turned al-Qaeda from a backwater militant groups into a global movement.

Are you saying that it was impossible for the US to improve upon Saddam's regime? That a US occupation was bound to be worse than Saddam?

I am not saying that the current regime is "worse" than Saddam. Saddam was obviously worse inasmuch as he was a brutal, mass-murdering totalitarian. Rather, the current government is completely and utterly unable to control its own country and to ensure internal security. The U.S. had a moral duty to ensure that Iraq was better equipped to self-govern before it pulled out.

You did not answer the question. Do you think the US could have done better than what is currently in place in Iraq?

Yes.

Also, since you brought it up in your response, do you agree with ararmer that we pulled out "too early"?

I think pulling out will reap some benefits- they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

I'm curious as to what you believe some of these long term benefits will be. As for the rest of that paragraph I totally agree.

Benefits to our economy

How? Oil is still above $100/barrel.

We aren't sinking as much $$$ into the war; oil prices have decreased; and we are more able to redirect funds to domestic, rather than foreign, spending.

Did you look at my other 3 comments parsing out the economic impact of oil prices? The rise in oil imports compared to pre-war levels still far outstrip annual expenditures of the Iraq war even at its height.

Very well. The other two points seem valid though.

to our world image

Our world image is tarnished because we proved we cannot successfully and credibly occupy a country, something we were able to do all over the world post-WWII.

I think occupying countries is bad, period. But I agree with your assessment; it was the fact that we went into Iraq under false pretenses and that our occupation failed that we are so looked down upon. However, since withdrawal, we've been able to make modest repairs to our image.

Fair enough.

to reducing the influence of private companies on military life, etc.

No idea what you mean here.

PMFs and PMCs.

lol, still no idea what you mean. =)

Private Military Firms/Private Military Contractors. Think Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and Blackwater.

Keep in mind, being caught in a terrorist attack is extremely unlikely, and so it seems ridiculous to fight a war against terrorists when the threat they pose is so numerically small. It's not pragmatic--it's emotional.

Are you saying that the best course of action for the US following 9/11 was to do nothing?

I am saying that the correct course of actions was NOT to wage war or to declare a ill-defined, overbroad "war on terror."

I will repeat my question.

I answered it--we should have done something, just not what we did.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 10:01:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 9:54:32 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/7/2014 9:50:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

[etc]

I think pulling out will reap some benefits- they will be long term ones rather than immediate. What's really screwing Iraq is that their Sunni and Shi'ite MPs cannot work together. The government is fractious, sectarian, and incompetent. Al-Qaeda exploits that.

I'm curious as to what you believe some of these long term benefits will be. As for the rest of that paragraph I totally agree.

Benefits to our economy

How? Oil is still above $100/barrel.

We aren't sinking as much $$$ into the war; oil prices have decreased; and we are more able to redirect funds to domestic, rather than foreign, spending.

Did you look at my other 3 comments parsing out the economic impact of oil prices? The rise in oil imports compared to pre-war levels still far outstrip annual expenditures of the Iraq war even at its height.

Very well. The other two points seem valid though.

Given we are talking about oil imports, funds are still being spent in a foreign capacity. We are still losing massive treasure due to the outcome of the Iraq war from just oil imports. One of the primary beneficiaries of a rise in oil prices is Russia.

[etc]
to reducing the influence of private companies on military life, etc.

No idea what you mean here.

PMFs and PMCs.

lol, still no idea what you mean. =)

Private Military Firms/Private Military Contractors. Think Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and Blackwater.

I'm not sure you're framing it correctly then. What exactly do you mean by these firms having an impact on military life?

I will fully agree with you if you mean that us pulling out would lessen the impact of contractors on Iraqi life, which is more than likely a good thing. But on US military life? Most servicepeople get jobs as contractors after a successful tour of duty.

Keep in mind, being caught in a terrorist attack is extremely unlikely, and so it seems ridiculous to fight a war against terrorists when the threat they pose is so numerically small. It's not pragmatic--it's emotional.

Are you saying that the best course of action for the US following 9/11 was to do nothing?

I am saying that the correct course of actions was NOT to wage war or to declare a ill-defined, overbroad "war on terror."

I will repeat my question.

I answered it--we should have done something, just not what we did.

What then?

I can't answer this myself, which is why I don't fault Bush for invading Iraq, nor do I fault him for invading Afghanistan to get al-Qaeda. I fault him for the extremely poor planning that went into the occupation.

If you can answer that question, I'd be very interested in hearing what your answer would be.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 10:06:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 10:01:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/7/2014 9:54:32 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Most servicepeople get jobs as contractors after a successful tour of duty.

Just to elaborate on this, two high-profile servicepeople that got jobs as contractors are General Shinseki, who sits on the board of directors of various military contractors, and Edward Snowden, who was paid $250,000/year in his job as an NSA contractor shortly before he committed treason.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 10:08:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 10:01:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/7/2014 9:54:32 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/7/2014 9:50:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

[etc]

to reducing the influence of private companies on military life, etc.

No idea what you mean here.

PMFs and PMCs.

lol, still no idea what you mean. =)

Private Military Firms/Private Military Contractors. Think Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and Blackwater.

I'm not sure you're framing it correctly then. What exactly do you mean by these firms having an impact on military life?

I will fully agree with you if you mean that us pulling out would lessen the impact of contractors on Iraqi life, which is more than likely a good thing. But on US military life? Most servicepeople get jobs as contractors after a successful tour of duty.

I think it's both--definitely their impact on Iraqi life has decreased. But PMF influence increases during wartime just as the army's influence increase during wartime.

Frankly, I would like to see PMFs and PMCs nearly completely phased out. I think Eisenhower's observation re: the military-industrial complex was incredible shrewd.

Keep in mind, being caught in a terrorist attack is extremely unlikely, and so it seems ridiculous to fight a war against terrorists when the threat they pose is so numerically small. It's not pragmatic--it's emotional.

Are you saying that the best course of action for the US following 9/11 was to do nothing?

I am saying that the correct course of actions was NOT to wage war or to declare a ill-defined, overbroad "war on terror."

I will repeat my question.

I answered it--we should have done something, just not what we did.

What then?

9/11 was a crime committed by identifiable criminals. I think we should have tried (in civilian court) those we could arrest. For those people we couldn't arrest, we should have assassinated them. Extrajudicial killings are risky, but from a utilitarian perspective, I think it would have been the optimal choice.

I can't answer this myself, which is why I don't fault Bush for invading Iraq, nor do I fault him for invading Afghanistan to get al-Qaeda. I fault him for the extremely poor planning that went into the occupation.

If you can answer that question, I'd be very interested in hearing what your answer would be.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 10:19:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 10:08:15 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/7/2014 10:01:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/7/2014 9:54:32 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/7/2014 9:50:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

[etc]

to reducing the influence of private companies on military life, etc.

No idea what you mean here.

PMFs and PMCs.

lol, still no idea what you mean. =)

Private Military Firms/Private Military Contractors. Think Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and Blackwater.

I'm not sure you're framing it correctly then. What exactly do you mean by these firms having an impact on military life?

I will fully agree with you if you mean that us pulling out would lessen the impact of contractors on Iraqi life, which is more than likely a good thing. But on US military life? Most servicepeople get jobs as contractors after a successful tour of duty.

I think it's both--definitely their impact on Iraqi life has decreased. But PMF influence increases during wartime just as the army's influence increase during wartime.

Frankly, I would like to see PMFs and PMCs nearly completely phased out. I think Eisenhower's observation re: the military-industrial complex was incredible shrewd.

I've given this some thought recently...before I used to think very much along your lines.

There are some problems with focusing on the military industrial complex (MIC) as some sort of malevolent entity. Essentially, any cutting edge technology that can jeopardize security (for example, new satellite technology, new communications technology, etc), even if it was developed by a non-MIC corporation, will become an MIC corporation. I read a lot of news on US-China trade relations over the past decade, and "national security" almost always came up when it came to high-tech acquisitions from China. Two firms I can think of off the top of my head are 3COM, which entered a partnership with Huawei, and Lenovo when they bought IBM's PC division.

Believe it or not, firms like 3Com and IBM are part of the MIC. They deal with projects that are so cutting edge that the government commandeers the projects, or at the very least heavily regulates what occurs with these projects.

In this sense, I would say that the MIC is ubiquitous and not limited to the traditional firms like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, NG, etc...It's impossible to separate the MIC from corporate America, because the MIC represents the best and the brightest of corporate America. A strange spin on public and popular perception of the MIC, I'm sure...regardless, this was the conclusion I reached recently.

Keep in mind, being caught in a terrorist attack is extremely unlikely, and so it seems ridiculous to fight a war against terrorists when the threat they pose is so numerically small. It's not pragmatic--it's emotional.

Are you saying that the best course of action for the US following 9/11 was to do nothing?

I am saying that the correct course of actions was NOT to wage war or to declare a ill-defined, overbroad "war on terror."

I will repeat my question.

I answered it--we should have done something, just not what we did.

What then?

9/11 was a crime committed by identifiable criminals. I think we should have tried (in civilian court) those we could arrest. For those people we couldn't arrest, we should have assassinated them. Extrajudicial killings are risky, but from a utilitarian perspective, I think it would have been the optimal choice.

I understand your answer here as omitting the war in Iraq, which I can understand even if I may disagree with that stance.

On extrajudicial killings, wouldn't assassination of known terrorists be a "war on terror"? Also, wouldn't capturing terrorists result in invaluable intel that would prevent future terrorist attacks against the US?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 10:25:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 10:19:17 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/7/2014 10:08:15 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/7/2014 10:01:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/7/2014 9:54:32 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/7/2014 9:50:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

[etc]

to reducing the influence of private companies on military life, etc.

No idea what you mean here.

PMFs and PMCs.

lol, still no idea what you mean. =)

Private Military Firms/Private Military Contractors. Think Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and Blackwater.

I'm not sure you're framing it correctly then. What exactly do you mean by these firms having an impact on military life?

I will fully agree with you if you mean that us pulling out would lessen the impact of contractors on Iraqi life, which is more than likely a good thing. But on US military life? Most servicepeople get jobs as contractors after a successful tour of duty.

I think it's both--definitely their impact on Iraqi life has decreased. But PMF influence increases during wartime just as the army's influence increase during wartime.

Frankly, I would like to see PMFs and PMCs nearly completely phased out. I think Eisenhower's observation re: the military-industrial complex was incredible shrewd.

I've given this some thought recently...before I used to think very much along your lines.

There are some problems with focusing on the military industrial complex (MIC) as some sort of malevolent entity. Essentially, any cutting edge technology that can jeopardize security (for example, new satellite technology, new communications technology, etc), even if it was developed by a non-MIC corporation, will become an MIC corporation. I read a lot of news on US-China trade relations over the past decade, and "national security" almost always came up when it came to high-tech acquisitions from China. Two firms I can think of off the top of my head are 3COM, which entered a partnership with Huawei, and Lenovo when they bought IBM's PC division.

Believe it or not, firms like 3Com and IBM are part of the MIC. They deal with projects that are so cutting edge that the government commandeers the projects, or at the very least heavily regulates what occurs with these projects.

In this sense, I would say that the MIC is ubiquitous and not limited to the traditional firms like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, NG, etc...It's impossible to separate the MIC from corporate America, because the MIC represents the best and the brightest of corporate America. A strange spin on public and popular perception of the MIC, I'm sure...regardless, this was the conclusion I reached recently.

I think that they can be separated rather simply--outlaw most corporate interference in military or industrial-scale security projects.

Keep in mind, being caught in a terrorist attack is extremely unlikely, and so it seems ridiculous to fight a war against terrorists when the threat they pose is so numerically small. It's not pragmatic--it's emotional.

Are you saying that the best course of action for the US following 9/11 was to do nothing?

I am saying that the correct course of actions was NOT to wage war or to declare a ill-defined, overbroad "war on terror."

I will repeat my question.

I answered it--we should have done something, just not what we did.

What then?

9/11 was a crime committed by identifiable criminals. I think we should have tried (in civilian court) those we could arrest. For those people we couldn't arrest, we should have assassinated them. Extrajudicial killings are risky, but from a utilitarian perspective, I think it would have been the optimal choice.

I understand your answer here as omitting the war in Iraq, which I can understand even if I may disagree with that stance.

On extrajudicial killings, wouldn't assassination of known terrorists be a "war on terror"? Also, wouldn't capturing terrorists result in invaluable intel that would prevent future terrorist attacks against the US?

I said those we cannot capture, we should kill. Capture would, of course, be preferable.

A war on terror implies that we are fighting an idea--the idea that terror is okay. It also implies widespread commitment, as this is the nature of war. I would categorize such an extrajudicial killing as more so a targeted assault on a known criminal.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...