Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

US to Declare Genocide in the Middle East

bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:39:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Obama Administration is considering deeming ISIS's actions regarding the Yazidi people a genocide [https://www.yahoo.com...]. By any reasonable understanding of the term, it is a genocide; but this move is significant because by recognizing it as such, there is a possibility that the US could be legally obligated to take actions to stop it. The Genocide Convention requires nations to act to prevent genocide and punish genocidaires, and so this move could place on us a legal obligation to act. Now, actions =/= military boots on the ground (necessarily), but it could prod us to do more in the Middle East.

Thoughts? Reactions? Is this a good move morally, politically, and/or pragmatically? Do you support it?
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...
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 4:31:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:39:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Obama Administration is considering deeming ISIS's actions regarding the Yazidi people a genocide [https://www.yahoo.com...]. By any reasonable understanding of the term, it is a genocide; but this move is significant because by recognizing it as such, there is a possibility that the US could be legally obligated to take actions to stop it. The Genocide Convention requires nations to act to prevent genocide and punish genocidaires, and so this move could place on us a legal obligation to act. Now, actions =/= military boots on the ground (necessarily), but it could prod us to do more in the Middle East.

Thoughts? Reactions? Is this a good move morally, politically, and/or pragmatically? Do you support it?

Personally I think the Islamic state militant group has certainly commited genocide against people under its rule. However I don't believe western nations putting boots on the ground will solve anything. It will simply cause resentment in the middle east and create another Iraq or Afghanistan scenario where western military presence is needed long term to prevent the extremists retaking power. In my view the only road to peace in Syria is to reinstate the Assad dictatorship. It is certainly not ideal but preferable to Islamic state or a continued war between many different factions. The west has to accept with Russian support for Assad it's impossible to overthrow him without further escalating the conflict. In my view the west should attempt to use ceding to Russian demands in Syria as a negotiation tool in Ukraine. If the west agreed to support Assad in Syria Maybe Russia could be pursuaded to pull out of Ukraine or at the very least agree some sort of treaty to end the conflict in Ukraine.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 4:45:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 4:31:55 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:39:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Obama Administration is considering deeming ISIS's actions regarding the Yazidi people a genocide [https://www.yahoo.com...]. By any reasonable understanding of the term, it is a genocide; but this move is significant because by recognizing it as such, there is a possibility that the US could be legally obligated to take actions to stop it. The Genocide Convention requires nations to act to prevent genocide and punish genocidaires, and so this move could place on us a legal obligation to act. Now, actions =/= military boots on the ground (necessarily), but it could prod us to do more in the Middle East.

Thoughts? Reactions? Is this a good move morally, politically, and/or pragmatically? Do you support it?

Personally I think the Islamic state militant group has certainly commited genocide against people under its rule. However I don't believe western nations putting boots on the ground will solve anything. It will simply cause resentment in the middle east and create another Iraq or Afghanistan scenario where western military presence is needed long term to prevent the extremists retaking power. In my view the only road to peace in Syria is to reinstate the Assad dictatorship. It is certainly not ideal but preferable to Islamic state or a continued war between many different factions. The west has to accept with Russian support for Assad it's impossible to overthrow him without further escalating the conflict. In my view the west should attempt to use ceding to Russian demands in Syria as a negotiation tool in Ukraine. If the west agreed to support Assad in Syria Maybe Russia could be pursuaded to pull out of Ukraine or at the very least agree some sort of treaty to end the conflict in Ukraine.

Why? Why not just do a 9 month boots on the ground campaign against the ISIL (enough to cause them to lose all their territory, cause them to lose all their really advanced equipment, and force them back into an insurgent role) and then withdraw?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 4:49:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In fact, why not wait until these insurgent groups take over much territory, do short several month long campaigns against them, and then withdraw? It'd probably be much cheaper to fight a conventional war against an inferior opponent than to keep waging counter-insurgencies. Also, groups would realize that "hey, the US will stop us if we ever succeed in capturing large swathes of territory and at their current rate the US can keep this up for decades, so why bother?"
Also, the fairly low US casualties and short duration of this would mean the public would complain less. They'd see only clear victories and not annoying and protracted counter-insurgencies.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 5:23:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why? Why not just do a 9 month boots on the ground campaign against the ISIL (enough to cause them to lose all their territory, cause them to lose all their really advanced equipment, and force them back into an insurgent role) and then withdraw?

"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III." - Rumsfeld 2002
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 7:22:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 4:49:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In fact, why not wait until these insurgent groups take over much territory, do short several month long campaigns against them, and then withdraw? It'd probably be much cheaper to fight a conventional war against an inferior opponent than to keep waging counter-insurgencies. Also, groups would realize that "hey, the US will stop us if we ever succeed in capturing large swathes of territory and at their current rate the US can keep this up for decades, so why bother?"
Also, the fairly low US casualties and short duration of this would mean the public would complain less. They'd see only clear victories and not annoying and protracted counter-insurgencies.

I am not opposed completely to the boots on the ground approach but in this case it is not the best solution. This is not a simple case of Islamic state fighting a democratically elected government with no other players involved. This is a conflict across two countries that involves all neighbouring countries to some extent and many major world powers. There are dozens of factions of varying credibility fighting against a reasonably legitimate Iraqi government and a brutal dictatorship in Syria with Islamic state also involved. Eliminating Islamic state may be quite straightforward as a group controlling territory but it will not be eliminated as an insurgency and a US capture of its territory may increase its activity in other areas of the world and increase the number of terrorist attacks it commits against the west. I believe it will be easier to eliminate if it is Assads regime with Russian support who eliminate it rather than the usa.

If the usa did take control of Iraqi is territory it could be handed back to the Iraqi government. This is a possible solution. However in Syria it is completely unknown what will happen to the territory following a swift USA exit. Most likely it will initially be controlled by a variety of militia and armed groups before Assads regime with Russian support eventually takes over the territory which in time I believe it would do anyway. It's strategically better for the west to withdraw from the conflict in Syria and allow the war to take its natural course. Maybe advocating an independant Kurdish state as part of a deal with Russia may be a good idea though. After Assads regime defeats its opponents it would then be a good time for the usa to send its army into Iraq to clear out Islamic state.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 7:35:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 5:23:42 PM, TBR wrote:
Why? Why not just do a 9 month boots on the ground campaign against the ISIL (enough to cause them to lose all their territory, cause them to lose all their really advanced equipment, and force them back into an insurgent role) and then withdraw?

"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III." - Rumsfeld 2002

So basically even if we don't intend on staying there long we'll end up staying a long time.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 7:37:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 5:23:42 PM, TBR wrote:
Why? Why not just do a 9 month boots on the ground campaign against the ISIL (enough to cause them to lose all their territory, cause them to lose all their really advanced equipment, and force them back into an insurgent role) and then withdraw?

"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III." - Rumsfeld 2002

Just to clarify, declaring a genocide in progress DOES NOT mandate the U.S. put troops on the ground.
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...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 7:45:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So basically even if we don't intend on staying there long we'll end up staying a long time.

Its our history. Hard to think of many exceptions.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 7:52:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just for kicks, and as a reminder for the younger users. More quotes.

"" something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question." - Donald Rumsfeld

"No. That"s someone else"s business. Quagmire is " I don"t do quagmires." - Donald Rumsfeld

"Q: About a year ago, you said that the insurgency in Iraq was in its final throes. Do you still believe this? Cheney: Yes." - Dick Cheney 2006

"We have now reached a turning point in the struggle between freedom and terror." - George W. Bush

Just for once I would like the hawks to listen to the voices saying otherwise. They have been wrong almost every damn time, yet so many seem to think they are the ones that "know better".
58539672
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:04:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:39:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Obama Administration is considering deeming ISIS's actions regarding the Yazidi people a genocide [https://www.yahoo.com...]. By any reasonable understanding of the term, it is a genocide; but this move is significant because by recognizing it as such, there is a possibility that the US could be legally obligated to take actions to stop it. The Genocide Convention requires nations to act to prevent genocide and punish genocidaires, and so this move could place on us a legal obligation to act. Now, actions =/= military boots on the ground (necessarily), but it could prod us to do more in the Middle East.

Thoughts? Reactions? Is this a good move morally, politically, and/or pragmatically? Do you support it?

Hasn't the US already taken action against ISIS? We have been bombing them for a while now as well as both supplying and training their enemies.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:05:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 8:04:37 PM, 58539672 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:39:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Obama Administration is considering deeming ISIS's actions regarding the Yazidi people a genocide [https://www.yahoo.com...]. By any reasonable understanding of the term, it is a genocide; but this move is significant because by recognizing it as such, there is a possibility that the US could be legally obligated to take actions to stop it. The Genocide Convention requires nations to act to prevent genocide and punish genocidaires, and so this move could place on us a legal obligation to act. Now, actions =/= military boots on the ground (necessarily), but it could prod us to do more in the Middle East.

Thoughts? Reactions? Is this a good move morally, politically, and/or pragmatically? Do you support it?

Hasn't the US already taken action against ISIS? We have been bombing them for a while now as well as both supplying and training their enemies.

It would give the U.S. more legal and moral authority to act.
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...
58539672
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:09:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 8:05:20 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 8:04:37 PM, 58539672 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:39:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Obama Administration is considering deeming ISIS's actions regarding the Yazidi people a genocide [https://www.yahoo.com...]. By any reasonable understanding of the term, it is a genocide; but this move is significant because by recognizing it as such, there is a possibility that the US could be legally obligated to take actions to stop it. The Genocide Convention requires nations to act to prevent genocide and punish genocidaires, and so this move could place on us a legal obligation to act. Now, actions =/= military boots on the ground (necessarily), but it could prod us to do more in the Middle East.

Thoughts? Reactions? Is this a good move morally, politically, and/or pragmatically? Do you support it?

Hasn't the US already taken action against ISIS? We have been bombing them for a while now as well as both supplying and training their enemies.

It would give the U.S. more legal and moral authority to act.

It would give Legal and moral authority to act after we have already acted. This sounds more like a technicality than any shift in policy.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:11:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 8:09:15 PM, 58539672 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 8:05:20 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 8:04:37 PM, 58539672 wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:39:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Obama Administration is considering deeming ISIS's actions regarding the Yazidi people a genocide [https://www.yahoo.com...]. By any reasonable understanding of the term, it is a genocide; but this move is significant because by recognizing it as such, there is a possibility that the US could be legally obligated to take actions to stop it. The Genocide Convention requires nations to act to prevent genocide and punish genocidaires, and so this move could place on us a legal obligation to act. Now, actions =/= military boots on the ground (necessarily), but it could prod us to do more in the Middle East.

Thoughts? Reactions? Is this a good move morally, politically, and/or pragmatically? Do you support it?

Hasn't the US already taken action against ISIS? We have been bombing them for a while now as well as both supplying and training their enemies.

It would give the U.S. more legal and moral authority to act.

It would give Legal and moral authority to act after we have already acted. This sounds more like a technicality than any shift in policy.

The legal authority for our actions was already there. The point here is that invoking the term genocide creates an additional moral and legal impetus to act, and gives us extra tools in both arenas to act and to convince others to act.
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...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:13:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The legal authority for our actions was already there. The point here is that invoking the term genocide creates an additional moral and legal impetus to act, and gives us extra tools in both arenas to act and to convince others to act.

Had to dig for this one.

"Thomas Jefferson once said: 'Of course the people don't want war. But the people can be brought to the bidding of their leader. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for somehow a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.' I think that was Jefferson. Oh wait. That was Hermann Goering. Shoot." - Jon Stewart.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:14:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 8:13:35 PM, TBR wrote:
The legal authority for our actions was already there. The point here is that invoking the term genocide creates an additional moral and legal impetus to act, and gives us extra tools in both arenas to act and to convince others to act.

Had to dig for this one.

"Thomas Jefferson once said: 'Of course the people don't want war. But the people can be brought to the bidding of their leader. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for somehow a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.' I think that was Jefferson. Oh wait. That was Hermann Goering. Shoot." - Jon Stewart.

Are you against this move?
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...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:16:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are you against this move?

I an against any action that involves us further in any military action in the M.E. You can get me to spend money for aid, offer sanctuary for those displaced, mediation, but not one more damn gun.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:38:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think it's doubtful that the Obama administration will send U.S ground forces into Syria/Iraq, specifically in aid of assisting the Yazidi's and other targeted communities. *If* they were to, there would be another alterior motive behind it.

There has long been recognition of the fact that the treatment of religious minorities (at the hands of ISIS) could potentially fall under the category of genocide--the U.S 'officially' declaring this would merely be a technicality. And once again, if there was any prospect of deploying ground forces it would not be because of persecution of minorities. At the most there may possibly be some *very* minor (superficial) adjustments in military strategy, but that's rather it. The U.S' key area of interest is what Russia does and the Assad government.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:44:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 8:16:40 PM, TBR wrote:
Are you against this move?

I an against any action that involves us further in any military action in the M.E. You can get me to spend money for aid, offer sanctuary for those displaced, mediation, but not one more damn gun.

So, more airstrikes, airlifts, etc. are not okay?
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...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:49:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

So, more airstrikes, airlifts, etc. are not okay?

I cant be more clear about this. Gather all our guys up, get them on planes and ships, and say goodbye.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:51:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 8:49:36 PM, TBR wrote:

So, more airstrikes, airlifts, etc. are not okay?

I cant be more clear about this. Gather all our guys up, get them on planes and ships, and say goodbye.

We can agree to disagree here. The moral imperative of stopping genocide, IMO, outweighs any self-interested motives the U.S. has.
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...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:53:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We can agree to disagree here. The moral imperative of stopping genocide, IMO, outweighs any self-interested motives the U.S. has.

I would be right with you if I thought our efforts do any good in the area. I would support any effort to minimize suffering. Our efforts produce the opposite results, time to stop doing them.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:55:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 8:53:26 PM, TBR wrote:
We can agree to disagree here. The moral imperative of stopping genocide, IMO, outweighs any self-interested motives the U.S. has.

I would be right with you if I thought our efforts do any good in the area. I would support any effort to minimize suffering. Our efforts produce the opposite results, time to stop doing them.

Again, I disagree. Our defense of the Yazidis on Mt. Sinjar, for instance, literally saved thousands of people from being massacred. The airstrikes are assisting the Kurds in pushing ISIS back, too.
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...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:55:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What I am saying is, the best thing we can do to help alleviate suffering of the people in the M.E. is to stop trying to alleviate suffering in the M.E. We suck at it.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,846
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 9:08:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:39:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The Obama Administration is considering deeming ISIS's actions regarding the Yazidi people a genocide [https://www.yahoo.com...]. By any reasonable understanding of the term, it is a genocide; but this move is significant because by recognizing it as such, there is a possibility that the US could be legally obligated to take actions to stop it. The Genocide Convention requires nations to act to prevent genocide and punish genocidaires, and so this move could place on us a legal obligation to act. Now, actions =/= military boots on the ground (necessarily), but it could prod us to do more in the Middle East.

Thoughts? Reactions? Is this a good move morally, politically, and/or pragmatically? Do you support it?

Oh, I thought you meant the US is going to commit genocide against the terrorists in the Middle East, which...is an option. But I absolutely agree with classifying their actions as genocide. They're killing almost all minority groups in the Middle East and their unspeakable actions against the Yazidi people is justification enough alone. Someone needs to put ISIS down.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 10:06:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 7:52:33 PM, TBR wrote:
Just for kicks, and as a reminder for the younger users. More quotes.

"" something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question." - Donald Rumsfeld

"No. That"s someone else"s business. Quagmire is " I don"t do quagmires." - Donald Rumsfeld

"Q: About a year ago, you said that the insurgency in Iraq was in its final throes. Do you still believe this? Cheney: Yes." - Dick Cheney 2006

"We have now reached a turning point in the struggle between freedom and terror." - George W. Bush

Just for once I would like the hawks to listen to the voices saying otherwise. They have been wrong almost every damn time, yet so many seem to think they are the ones that "know better".

Yes, but there was no magical reason why they had to stay in Iraq after Hussein was defeated. They technically could've left immediately afterwards.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 10:18:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 10:06:51 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/12/2015 7:52:33 PM, TBR wrote:
Just for kicks, and as a reminder for the younger users. More quotes.

"" something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question." - Donald Rumsfeld

"No. That"s someone else"s business. Quagmire is " I don"t do quagmires." - Donald Rumsfeld

"Q: About a year ago, you said that the insurgency in Iraq was in its final throes. Do you still believe this? Cheney: Yes." - Dick Cheney 2006

"We have now reached a turning point in the struggle between freedom and terror." - George W. Bush

Just for once I would like the hawks to listen to the voices saying otherwise. They have been wrong almost every damn time, yet so many seem to think they are the ones that "know better".

Yes, but there was no magical reason why they had to stay in Iraq after Hussein was defeated. They technically could've left immediately afterwards.

If your age is accurate, you weren't around when this junk was happening. It is a loop. Same discussions, same fear, no reason to expect anything different. Why didn't we leave? Ask all the hawks. They insisted (still do) that we MUST stay.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 10:46:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't have anything against America trying to stop a genocide. I only very strongly doubt it would ever do that just for that end itself. :)
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 10:52:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:39:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Thoughts? Reactions? Is this a good move morally, politically, and/or pragmatically? Do you support it?
Yes. It is important to take some kind of assisting role when conflicts like these threaten to destabilize the geopolitical realm. A conventional intervention wouldn't help much at this point. Military contingents should work alongside the Iraqi army and Kurdish militias.

The Iraqi army is incredibly ineffective, and they do not want to conduct any operations despite outnumbering the enemy by times 400 because they are worried about political incidents involved with badly coordinated operations.

This is getting ridiculous though. They are neglecting two very important military doctrines, the Iraqi Army, which are application of force and general decisiveness.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 10:53:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 10:46:30 PM, Mirza wrote:
I don't have anything against America trying to stop a genocide. I only very strongly doubt it would ever do that just for that end itself. :)

That's a given, I would say every intervention throughout world history has been secretly self righteous.