Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

In Defense of the War in Iraq

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There seems to almost be a universal consensus that the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation was a "mistake". I disagree with this assertion.

Allow me to explain:
http://www.faqs.org...

The link provided contains some old data on Iraq, dating from 2002. According to this data, the GDP of Iraq was in between 59 and 60 Billion dollars.
Today, according to Wikipedia, the GDP of Iraq stands at 240 Billion (as of 2014, presumably).
Unless I'm mistaken, this means the Iraqi economy QUADRUPLED in size over 14 years. Their population has definitely increased since then, but it hasn't quadrupled. Thus, it stands to reason that the average Iraqi is noticeably better off economically today than he/she was 14 years ago. In fact, Iraq has a better ranking on the HDI Index than Vietnam, according to Wikipedia. Now, one should account for things like inflation, but it's still probable that the average Iraqi is better off economically today. One might argue that the economy would've grown anyway, but surely it wouldn't have increased by 4 times in 14 years. In fact, under sanctions the economy of Iraq had actually shrunken throughout the 90s.
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?
And, unlike in the Vietnam War, whenever we withdrew the country didn't immediately get taken over by crazies. The ISIL is certainly a cause for concern, but it doesn't look like they'll be around for much longer if current trends continue. It is at this point unlikely that they'll succeed in taking over the country, or that they'll hold on to territory in Iraq by the time Obama leaves office. Other existing insurgent groups in Iraq are, while dangerous to civilians, overall insignificant. The Vietnam War was a failure in pretty much every sense of the word; the Iraq War did at least accomplish some things, as shown above. Overall the Iraq War should be classified as a costly victory.

The only real complaints about the Iraq War are, in my opinion, short-term high casualties to both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, high financial cost to the United States, as well as the fact that this war did not actually benefit the United States in any meaningful way.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:33:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 3:30:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Money can't buy you love man.

I don't get what you mean.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:43:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 3:33:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:30:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Money can't buy you love man.

I don't get what you mean.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:51:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?

You miss the mark entirely.

Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq today would be much preferred to what is currently going on. His rule was much more stable, did not involve militant groups taking over the country and nearby land - which reminds me - ISIS kills a lot of people. Hardly an improvement, if any. They might even kill more than Hussein's government did.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:53:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And, unlike in the Vietnam War, whenever we withdrew the country didn't immediately get taken over by crazies. The ISIL is certainly a cause for concern, but it doesn't look like they'll be around for much longer if current trends continue. It is at this point unlikely that they'll succeed in taking over the country, or that they'll hold on to territory in Iraq by the time Obama leaves office. Other existing insurgent groups in Iraq are, while dangerous to civilians, overall insignificant. The Vietnam War was a failure in pretty much every sense of the word; the Iraq War did at least accomplish some things, as shown above. Overall the Iraq War should be classified as a costly victory.

ISIS controls a substantial portion of the land, and following a pattern of history - even if we destroy them, another group will take their place - BECAUSE WE DESTROYED THE STABLE GOVERNMENT.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 4:05:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 3:51:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?

You miss the mark entirely.

Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq today would be much preferred to what is currently going on. His rule was much more stable, did not involve militant groups taking over the country and nearby land - which reminds me - ISIS kills a lot of people. Hardly an improvement, if any. They might even kill more than Hussein's government did.

The ISIL is a short-term problem. Without the Invasion, Saddam Hussein might still be in power today. And the sanctions against Iraq might have continued. From the early 90s until 2003, the sanctions against Iraq resulted in nearly 2 million Iraqi deaths, compared to a little less than 215,000 violent deaths from the Iraq War since it began 11 years ago. Including non-violent deaths the number is likely noticeably higher, but still probably nowhere near 2 million.
Imagine if the sanctions had gone on for another 11 years; the number of sanction-caused Iraqi deaths probably would exceeded the total number of Iraq War casualties...and Saddam Hussein would've still been in power.

Saddam Hussein was no saint. Not by a long shot.
Here's a list (which may not even be complete) of his war crimes: http://abcnews.go.com...
The Iraqi government is slowly becoming more stable and competent; I'd definitely say it's an improvement. All that's needed is to get rid of ISIL, and that will be accomplished soon, most likely.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 4:07:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 3:53:42 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And, unlike in the Vietnam War, whenever we withdrew the country didn't immediately get taken over by crazies. The ISIL is certainly a cause for concern, but it doesn't look like they'll be around for much longer if current trends continue. It is at this point unlikely that they'll succeed in taking over the country, or that they'll hold on to territory in Iraq by the time Obama leaves office. Other existing insurgent groups in Iraq are, while dangerous to civilians, overall insignificant. The Vietnam War was a failure in pretty much every sense of the word; the Iraq War did at least accomplish some things, as shown above. Overall the Iraq War should be classified as a costly victory.

ISIS controls a substantial portion of the land, and following a pattern of history - even if we destroy them, another group will take their place - BECAUSE WE DESTROYED THE STABLE GOVERNMENT.

Look at a current map of Iraq; while still substantial, the ISIL is holding on to significantly less land than it was, say, last December. I should know; I've been keeping track.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 4:09:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Even if the ISIL's territorial holdings were from this moment onwards to remain consistent (that is, it neither expands nor shrinks), most of Iraq would still be not under their control.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 4:10:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 4:07:09 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:53:42 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And, unlike in the Vietnam War, whenever we withdrew the country didn't immediately get taken over by crazies. The ISIL is certainly a cause for concern, but it doesn't look like they'll be around for much longer if current trends continue. It is at this point unlikely that they'll succeed in taking over the country, or that they'll hold on to territory in Iraq by the time Obama leaves office. Other existing insurgent groups in Iraq are, while dangerous to civilians, overall insignificant. The Vietnam War was a failure in pretty much every sense of the word; the Iraq War did at least accomplish some things, as shown above. Overall the Iraq War should be classified as a costly victory.

ISIS controls a substantial portion of the land, and following a pattern of history - even if we destroy them, another group will take their place - BECAUSE WE DESTROYED THE STABLE GOVERNMENT.

Look at a current map of Iraq; while still substantial, the ISIL is holding on to significantly less land than it was, say, last December. I should know; I've been keeping track.

I've seen the maps.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 4:11:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
People generally do poorly at looking at the big picture, thinking long-term; because of this, they see temporary setbacks and fail to realize that things are overall getting better.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 4:27:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 4:05:29 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:51:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?

You miss the mark entirely.

Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq today would be much preferred to what is currently going on. His rule was much more stable, did not involve militant groups taking over the country and nearby land - which reminds me - ISIS kills a lot of people. Hardly an improvement, if any. They might even kill more than Hussein's government did.

The ISIL is a short-term problem. Without the Invasion, Saddam Hussein might still be in power today. And the sanctions against Iraq might have continued. From the early 90s until 2003, the sanctions against Iraq resulted in nearly 2 million Iraqi deaths, compared to a little less than 215,000 violent deaths from the Iraq War since it began 11 years ago. Including non-violent deaths the number is likely noticeably higher, but still probably nowhere near 2 million.
Imagine if the sanctions had gone on for another 11 years; the number of sanction-caused Iraqi deaths probably would exceeded the total number of Iraq War casualties...and Saddam Hussein would've still been in power.

Saddam Hussein was no saint. Not by a long shot.
Here's a list (which may not even be complete) of his war crimes: http://abcnews.go.com...

Tell me where I said he was a saint. I said that militant groups like ISIS are just as bad, if not worse. If you've seen documentation about Saddam Hussein crucifying children, please, show me.

As for genocides, if ISIS had the chance, they would do much worse than 100,000 Kurds, and they would kill the entire Shia population.

The Iraqi government is slowly becoming more stable and competent; I'd definitely say it's an improvement. All that's needed is to get rid of ISIL, and that will be accomplished soon, most likely.

I saw that a force of 6,000 Iraqi police and military collapsed of 150 ISIS soldiers in Ramadi - which shows how incompetent the Iraqi government and their army is.

Iran also is sending Shia militants to Iraq to fight ISIS - which increases the recruitment numbers as Sunni Muslims grow more hostile towards the Shiites.

The US won't send troops to Iraq. Iraqi forces are too incompetent. Shia militant forces from Iran hurt the cause by increasing the recruit count. Not only that, the Iraqi Shiites are being stretched thin trying to protect cities from Isis.

ISIS' current plan is plainly obvious as well as ridiculously frightening. They're closing on on both Syria and Iraq's largest cities - Aleppo and Baghdad. And to use your maps argument, here's one:

http://static1.businessinsider.com...

Notice that they have a great success rate in taking cities over. And notice how they are in striking range of the most major cities.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 4:50:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 4:27:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:05:29 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:51:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?

You miss the mark entirely.

Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq today would be much preferred to what is currently going on. His rule was much more stable, did not involve militant groups taking over the country and nearby land - which reminds me - ISIS kills a lot of people. Hardly an improvement, if any. They might even kill more than Hussein's government did.

The ISIL is a short-term problem. Without the Invasion, Saddam Hussein might still be in power today. And the sanctions against Iraq might have continued. From the early 90s until 2003, the sanctions against Iraq resulted in nearly 2 million Iraqi deaths, compared to a little less than 215,000 violent deaths from the Iraq War since it began 11 years ago. Including non-violent deaths the number is likely noticeably higher, but still probably nowhere near 2 million.
Imagine if the sanctions had gone on for another 11 years; the number of sanction-caused Iraqi deaths probably would exceeded the total number of Iraq War casualties...and Saddam Hussein would've still been in power.

Saddam Hussein was no saint. Not by a long shot.
Here's a list (which may not even be complete) of his war crimes: http://abcnews.go.com...

Tell me where I said he was a saint. I said that militant groups like ISIS are just as bad, if not worse. If you've seen documentation about Saddam Hussein crucifying children, please, show me.

As for genocides, if ISIS had the chance, they would do much worse than 100,000 Kurds, and they would kill the entire Shia population.

I don't think they'll ever get such a chance, though.

The Iraqi government is slowly becoming more stable and competent; I'd definitely say it's an improvement. All that's needed is to get rid of ISIL, and that will be accomplished soon, most likely.

I saw that a force of 6,000 Iraqi police and military collapsed of 150 ISIS soldiers in Ramadi - which shows how incompetent the Iraqi government and their army is.

Iran also is sending Shia militants to Iraq to fight ISIS - which increases the recruitment numbers as Sunni Muslims grow more hostile towards the Shiites.

The US won't send troops to Iraq. Iraqi forces are too incompetent. Shia militant forces from Iran hurt the cause by increasing the recruit count. Not only that, the Iraqi Shiites are being stretched thin trying to protect cities from Isis.

ISIS' current plan is plainly obvious as well as ridiculously frightening. They're closing on on both Syria and Iraq's largest cities - Aleppo and Baghdad. And to use your maps argument, here's one:

http://static1.businessinsider.com...

Notice that they have a great success rate in taking cities over. And notice how they are in striking range of the most major cities.

So basically you think ISIL's going to succeed.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 4:52:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 4:50:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:27:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:05:29 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:51:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?

You miss the mark entirely.

Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq today would be much preferred to what is currently going on. His rule was much more stable, did not involve militant groups taking over the country and nearby land - which reminds me - ISIS kills a lot of people. Hardly an improvement, if any. They might even kill more than Hussein's government did.

The ISIL is a short-term problem. Without the Invasion, Saddam Hussein might still be in power today. And the sanctions against Iraq might have continued. From the early 90s until 2003, the sanctions against Iraq resulted in nearly 2 million Iraqi deaths, compared to a little less than 215,000 violent deaths from the Iraq War since it began 11 years ago. Including non-violent deaths the number is likely noticeably higher, but still probably nowhere near 2 million.
Imagine if the sanctions had gone on for another 11 years; the number of sanction-caused Iraqi deaths probably would exceeded the total number of Iraq War casualties...and Saddam Hussein would've still been in power.

Saddam Hussein was no saint. Not by a long shot.
Here's a list (which may not even be complete) of his war crimes: http://abcnews.go.com...

Tell me where I said he was a saint. I said that militant groups like ISIS are just as bad, if not worse. If you've seen documentation about Saddam Hussein crucifying children, please, show me.

As for genocides, if ISIS had the chance, they would do much worse than 100,000 Kurds, and they would kill the entire Shia population.

I don't think they'll ever get such a chance, though.

The Iraqi government is slowly becoming more stable and competent; I'd definitely say it's an improvement. All that's needed is to get rid of ISIL, and that will be accomplished soon, most likely.

I saw that a force of 6,000 Iraqi police and military collapsed of 150 ISIS soldiers in Ramadi - which shows how incompetent the Iraqi government and their army is.

Iran also is sending Shia militants to Iraq to fight ISIS - which increases the recruitment numbers as Sunni Muslims grow more hostile towards the Shiites.

The US won't send troops to Iraq. Iraqi forces are too incompetent. Shia militant forces from Iran hurt the cause by increasing the recruit count. Not only that, the Iraqi Shiites are being stretched thin trying to protect cities from Isis.

ISIS' current plan is plainly obvious as well as ridiculously frightening. They're closing on on both Syria and Iraq's largest cities - Aleppo and Baghdad. And to use your maps argument, here's one:

http://static1.businessinsider.com...

Notice that they have a great success rate in taking cities over. And notice how they are in striking range of the most major cities.

So basically you think ISIL's going to succeed.

No, not in the long run. But you're way too optimistic about how quickly they'll fail.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 4:55:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 4:52:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:50:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:27:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:05:29 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:51:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?

You miss the mark entirely.

Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq today would be much preferred to what is currently going on. His rule was much more stable, did not involve militant groups taking over the country and nearby land - which reminds me - ISIS kills a lot of people. Hardly an improvement, if any. They might even kill more than Hussein's government did.

The ISIL is a short-term problem. Without the Invasion, Saddam Hussein might still be in power today. And the sanctions against Iraq might have continued. From the early 90s until 2003, the sanctions against Iraq resulted in nearly 2 million Iraqi deaths, compared to a little less than 215,000 violent deaths from the Iraq War since it began 11 years ago. Including non-violent deaths the number is likely noticeably higher, but still probably nowhere near 2 million.
Imagine if the sanctions had gone on for another 11 years; the number of sanction-caused Iraqi deaths probably would exceeded the total number of Iraq War casualties...and Saddam Hussein would've still been in power.

Saddam Hussein was no saint. Not by a long shot.
Here's a list (which may not even be complete) of his war crimes: http://abcnews.go.com...

Tell me where I said he was a saint. I said that militant groups like ISIS are just as bad, if not worse. If you've seen documentation about Saddam Hussein crucifying children, please, show me.

As for genocides, if ISIS had the chance, they would do much worse than 100,000 Kurds, and they would kill the entire Shia population.

I don't think they'll ever get such a chance, though.

The Iraqi government is slowly becoming more stable and competent; I'd definitely say it's an improvement. All that's needed is to get rid of ISIL, and that will be accomplished soon, most likely.

I saw that a force of 6,000 Iraqi police and military collapsed of 150 ISIS soldiers in Ramadi - which shows how incompetent the Iraqi government and their army is.

Iran also is sending Shia militants to Iraq to fight ISIS - which increases the recruitment numbers as Sunni Muslims grow more hostile towards the Shiites.

The US won't send troops to Iraq. Iraqi forces are too incompetent. Shia militant forces from Iran hurt the cause by increasing the recruit count. Not only that, the Iraqi Shiites are being stretched thin trying to protect cities from Isis.

ISIS' current plan is plainly obvious as well as ridiculously frightening. They're closing on on both Syria and Iraq's largest cities - Aleppo and Baghdad. And to use your maps argument, here's one:

http://static1.businessinsider.com...

Notice that they have a great success rate in taking cities over. And notice how they are in striking range of the most major cities.

So basically you think ISIL's going to succeed.

No, not in the long run. But you're way too optimistic about how quickly they'll fail.

January 2017 is too optimistic?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 4:58:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 4:55:14 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:52:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:50:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:27:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 4:05:29 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:51:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?

You miss the mark entirely.

Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq today would be much preferred to what is currently going on. His rule was much more stable, did not involve militant groups taking over the country and nearby land - which reminds me - ISIS kills a lot of people. Hardly an improvement, if any. They might even kill more than Hussein's government did.

The ISIL is a short-term problem. Without the Invasion, Saddam Hussein might still be in power today. And the sanctions against Iraq might have continued. From the early 90s until 2003, the sanctions against Iraq resulted in nearly 2 million Iraqi deaths, compared to a little less than 215,000 violent deaths from the Iraq War since it began 11 years ago. Including non-violent deaths the number is likely noticeably higher, but still probably nowhere near 2 million.
Imagine if the sanctions had gone on for another 11 years; the number of sanction-caused Iraqi deaths probably would exceeded the total number of Iraq War casualties...and Saddam Hussein would've still been in power.

Saddam Hussein was no saint. Not by a long shot.
Here's a list (which may not even be complete) of his war crimes: http://abcnews.go.com...

Tell me where I said he was a saint. I said that militant groups like ISIS are just as bad, if not worse. If you've seen documentation about Saddam Hussein crucifying children, please, show me.

As for genocides, if ISIS had the chance, they would do much worse than 100,000 Kurds, and they would kill the entire Shia population.

I don't think they'll ever get such a chance, though.

The Iraqi government is slowly becoming more stable and competent; I'd definitely say it's an improvement. All that's needed is to get rid of ISIL, and that will be accomplished soon, most likely.

I saw that a force of 6,000 Iraqi police and military collapsed of 150 ISIS soldiers in Ramadi - which shows how incompetent the Iraqi government and their army is.

Iran also is sending Shia militants to Iraq to fight ISIS - which increases the recruitment numbers as Sunni Muslims grow more hostile towards the Shiites.

The US won't send troops to Iraq. Iraqi forces are too incompetent. Shia militant forces from Iran hurt the cause by increasing the recruit count. Not only that, the Iraqi Shiites are being stretched thin trying to protect cities from Isis.

ISIS' current plan is plainly obvious as well as ridiculously frightening. They're closing on on both Syria and Iraq's largest cities - Aleppo and Baghdad. And to use your maps argument, here's one:

http://static1.businessinsider.com...

Notice that they have a great success rate in taking cities over. And notice how they are in striking range of the most major cities.

So basically you think ISIL's going to succeed.

No, not in the long run. But you're way too optimistic about how quickly they'll fail.

January 2017 is too optimistic?

Yes.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 5:13:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The ISIS militants have taken Ramadi, 60 miles west of Bagdhad, and Falluja, which is roughly 30 miles west. ISIS is also in control of Karbala, which is 65 miles southwest of Bagdhad. They have control of, effectively, all territory to the west of Baghdad. They're also fighting in cities north of Baghdad, which, if they were to win those battles, would effectively surround the capital.

And if you'd like to know how bad it'd be if they were to make it to Baghdad, Gareth Stansfield, professor of Middle East Politics and the Al-Qasimi Chair of Arab Gulf Studies, Director of the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, and Director of Research of the Strategy and Security Institute at the University of Exeter, said that "there would be massacres to the scale we haven't seen since the Mongol empire in the 13th Century."

I find it hard to be optimistic.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 5:14:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 3:51:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?

You miss the mark entirely.

Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq today would be much preferred to what is currently going on. His rule was much more stable, did not involve militant groups taking over the country and nearby land - which reminds me - ISIS kills a lot of people. Hardly an improvement, if any. They might even kill more than Hussein's government did.

How exactly is stability a positive thing per se in the case of dictatorship? In order to maintain stability, dictators often resort to mass murder and intimidation. Stability also stands in the way of positive change, because revolution is suppressed. Much of the positive change throughout history has required political instability. By allowing a dictator to maintain hold of power, you run the risk of creating another North Korea.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 5:17:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 5:14:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:51:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?

You miss the mark entirely.

Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq today would be much preferred to what is currently going on. His rule was much more stable, did not involve militant groups taking over the country and nearby land - which reminds me - ISIS kills a lot of people. Hardly an improvement, if any. They might even kill more than Hussein's government did.

How exactly is stability a positive thing per se in the case of dictatorship? In order to maintain stability, dictators often resort to mass murder and intimidation. Stability also stands in the way of positive change, because revolution is suppressed. Much of the positive change throughout history has required political instability. By allowing a dictator to maintain hold of power, you run the risk of creating another North Korea.

Because it was better than the alternative. Militant groups that take over the unstable land massacre hundreds to thousands every time they take a city - so there's hardly any difference.

Democracy is not achievable. And it has been shown that positive change is not achievable.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 5:38:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 3:33:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:30:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Money can't buy you love man.

I don't get what you mean.

What I mean is increased wealth won't be able to buy off the barbarian horde at the gates.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 5:39:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 5:17:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 5:14:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:51:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?

You miss the mark entirely.

Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq today would be much preferred to what is currently going on. His rule was much more stable, did not involve militant groups taking over the country and nearby land - which reminds me - ISIS kills a lot of people. Hardly an improvement, if any. They might even kill more than Hussein's government did.

How exactly is stability a positive thing per se in the case of dictatorship? In order to maintain stability, dictators often resort to mass murder and intimidation. Stability also stands in the way of positive change, because revolution is suppressed. Much of the positive change throughout history has required political instability. By allowing a dictator to maintain hold of power, you run the risk of creating another North Korea.

Because it was better than the alternative. Militant groups that take over the unstable land massacre hundreds to thousands every time they take a city - so there's hardly any difference.

Democracy is not achievable. And it has been shown that positive change is not achievable.

And dictatorships have been known to lead to the deaths of tens of millions, as well as threaten the existence of the entire human species. It's not as though the plan was to destroy the Iraqi government then hope for the best. Countries from all over the world helped contribute to Iraq's reconstruction. However, the resistance put up more of a fight than everyone expected.

And it's not as though we don't have examples of toppled dictatorships giving away to democracies. See: WW2. Failure is not as inevitable as you seem to believe.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 5:45:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 5:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2015 5:17:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 5:14:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:51:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?

You miss the mark entirely.

Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq today would be much preferred to what is currently going on. His rule was much more stable, did not involve militant groups taking over the country and nearby land - which reminds me - ISIS kills a lot of people. Hardly an improvement, if any. They might even kill more than Hussein's government did.

How exactly is stability a positive thing per se in the case of dictatorship? In order to maintain stability, dictators often resort to mass murder and intimidation. Stability also stands in the way of positive change, because revolution is suppressed. Much of the positive change throughout history has required political instability. By allowing a dictator to maintain hold of power, you run the risk of creating another North Korea.

Because it was better than the alternative. Militant groups that take over the unstable land massacre hundreds to thousands every time they take a city - so there's hardly any difference.

Democracy is not achievable. And it has been shown that positive change is not achievable.

And dictatorships have been known to lead to the deaths of tens of millions, as well as threaten the existence of the entire human species. It's not as though the plan was to destroy the Iraqi government then hope for the best. Countries from all over the world helped contribute to Iraq's reconstruction. However, the resistance put up more of a fight than everyone expected.

Saddam's dictatorship wasn't nearly that bad. Everyone helped reconstruct it into a country incompatible with its population. So much for hope.

And it's not as though we don't have examples of toppled dictatorships giving away to democracies. See: WW2. Failure is not as inevitable as you seem to believe.

There's a huge difference between toppled dictatorships in countries that were already democratic beforehand (Germany, Italy), and areas that have never experienced making their own decisions.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 5:51:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 5:45:10 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 5:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2015 5:17:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 5:14:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:51:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?

You miss the mark entirely.

Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq today would be much preferred to what is currently going on. His rule was much more stable, did not involve militant groups taking over the country and nearby land - which reminds me - ISIS kills a lot of people. Hardly an improvement, if any. They might even kill more than Hussein's government did.

How exactly is stability a positive thing per se in the case of dictatorship? In order to maintain stability, dictators often resort to mass murder and intimidation. Stability also stands in the way of positive change, because revolution is suppressed. Much of the positive change throughout history has required political instability. By allowing a dictator to maintain hold of power, you run the risk of creating another North Korea.

Because it was better than the alternative. Militant groups that take over the unstable land massacre hundreds to thousands every time they take a city - so there's hardly any difference.

Democracy is not achievable. And it has been shown that positive change is not achievable.

And dictatorships have been known to lead to the deaths of tens of millions, as well as threaten the existence of the entire human species. It's not as though the plan was to destroy the Iraqi government then hope for the best. Countries from all over the world helped contribute to Iraq's reconstruction. However, the resistance put up more of a fight than everyone expected.

Saddam's dictatorship wasn't nearly that bad. Everyone helped reconstruct it into a country incompatible with its population. So much for hope.

And it's not as though we don't have examples of toppled dictatorships giving away to democracies. See: WW2. Failure is not as inevitable as you seem to believe.

There's a huge difference between toppled dictatorships in countries that were already democratic beforehand (Germany, Italy), and areas that have never experienced making their own decisions.

I'm not so sure about in the case of Germany, but certainly in the case of Japan the dictatorship gave way to a radically different kind of government than the Japanese were used to.

"The most obvious changes were political. During the Occupation, Japan adopted a new constitution (sometimes called the MacArthur Constitution because of the major role Americans played in its drafting). This constitution was completely different from the Meiji Constitution of 1889.

-The biggest change was that it declared that sovereignty rested with the people, not the emperor. This is the political basis of democracy.
-The emperor was to continue as a symbol of Japanese unity and culture, somewhat like the Queen of England in Britain's democracy, but without any political authority whatsoever.
-The supreme political institution was now to be Japan's parliament, the Diet, which was to be made up of freely elected representatives of the people.
-Women were given equal rights under the new constitution, including the right to vote.
-Local governments were strengthened to encourage "grass-roots level" political participation.
-The constitution established many new civil liberties, such as the right of free speech, and the powers of the police were weakened and carefully regulated.
-Finally, the military forces were completely abolished and Article 9 of the new constitution forbade Japan to maintain an army or go to war ever again."

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 5:52:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 5:45:10 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 5:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Saddam's dictatorship wasn't nearly that bad. Everyone helped reconstruct it into a country incompatible with its population. So much for hope.


It might have gotten to that point, though. Dictators will do practically anything to stay in control.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 6:12:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whatever acts of torture ISIL commits, you can be sure Saddam Hussein was just as brutal.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 6:51:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hussein may have been stable, but is his rule desirable a bigger question. He still was violating a huge amount of human rights even if he didn't have WMDs.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 6:55:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 6:51:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Hussein may have been stable, but is his rule desirable a bigger question. He still was violating a huge amount of human rights even if he didn't have WMDs.
So, why does your country not invade North Korea? Or the plethora of countries who violate a multitude of human rights as well?

Wait - your country supported, and still supports, dictators, and their records are not that good. I sense they will be dealt with soon; or, is it against the good nature of American national interest to meddle in their affairs?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 6:56:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 5:51:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2015 5:45:10 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 5:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2015 5:17:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 5:14:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:51:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/19/2015 3:26:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And of course, there's the added bonus of Iraq not being ruled by the Ba'athist Party and Saddam Hussein. A weak Government that is barely able to function properly is better than a government that would kidnap you in the middle of the night, torture you, and then execute you, right?

You miss the mark entirely.

Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq today would be much preferred to what is currently going on. His rule was much more stable, did not involve militant groups taking over the country and nearby land - which reminds me - ISIS kills a lot of people. Hardly an improvement, if any. They might even kill more than Hussein's government did.

How exactly is stability a positive thing per se in the case of dictatorship? In order to maintain stability, dictators often resort to mass murder and intimidation. Stability also stands in the way of positive change, because revolution is suppressed. Much of the positive change throughout history has required political instability. By allowing a dictator to maintain hold of power, you run the risk of creating another North Korea.

Because it was better than the alternative. Militant groups that take over the unstable land massacre hundreds to thousands every time they take a city - so there's hardly any difference.

Democracy is not achievable. And it has been shown that positive change is not achievable.

And dictatorships have been known to lead to the deaths of tens of millions, as well as threaten the existence of the entire human species. It's not as though the plan was to destroy the Iraqi government then hope for the best. Countries from all over the world helped contribute to Iraq's reconstruction. However, the resistance put up more of a fight than everyone expected.

Saddam's dictatorship wasn't nearly that bad. Everyone helped reconstruct it into a country incompatible with its population. So much for hope.

And it's not as though we don't have examples of toppled dictatorships giving away to democracies. See: WW2. Failure is not as inevitable as you seem to believe.

There's a huge difference between toppled dictatorships in countries that were already democratic beforehand (Germany, Italy), and areas that have never experienced making their own decisions.

I'm not so sure about in the case of Germany, but certainly in the case of Japan the dictatorship gave way to a radically different kind of government than the Japanese were used to.

"The most obvious changes were political. During the Occupation, Japan adopted a new constitution (sometimes called the MacArthur Constitution because of the major role Americans played in its drafting). This constitution was completely different from the Meiji Constitution of 1889.

-The biggest change was that it declared that sovereignty rested with the people, not the emperor. This is the political basis of democracy.
-The emperor was to continue as a symbol of Japanese unity and culture, somewhat like the Queen of England in Britain's democracy, but without any political authority whatsoever.
-The supreme political institution was now to be Japan's parliament, the Diet, which was to be made up of freely elected representatives of the people.
-Women were given equal rights under the new constitution, including the right to vote.
-Local governments were strengthened to encourage "grass-roots level" political participation.
-The constitution established many new civil liberties, such as the right of free speech, and the powers of the police were weakened and carefully regulated.
-Finally, the military forces were completely abolished and Article 9 of the new constitution forbade Japan to maintain an army or go to war ever again."

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu...

There were some democratic reformations, I believe, in the 1920s and 30s - it wasn't full-out democracy - but they still had experienced democratic elements nonetheless.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King