Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Trump is a liar

POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:04:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
https://pbs.twimg.com...
going to ban muslims from entering America because fear of "muslims murdering" attacks... out of 355+ mass shootings (2015) in the U.S only 3 by muslim suspects? r u sh1tting me? what a clown im sure u have there plenty more murdrers of chirstian/atheist backgrounds? or its part his new plan agenda to invade more muslims lands to kill millions and steal resources as an excuse.... fgt.
Never fart near dog
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:13:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I don't see what taking Middle Eastern resources has to do with anything...
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.
This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:24:27 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Even the sacrosanct Euro nations are shutting down the floodgates. You wouldn't want to do something policywise opposite of the almighty Eurogods?
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 10:28:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
The Liberals should love him. We've been under the dictatorship of the Liberal God for over 7 years now.
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:02:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 8:04:09 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com...
going to ban muslims from entering America because fear of "muslims murdering" attacks... out of 355+ mass shootings (2015) in the U.S only 3 by muslim suspects? r u sh1tting me? what a clown im sure u have there plenty more murdrers of chirstian/atheist backgrounds? or its part his new plan agenda to invade more muslims lands to kill millions and steal resources as an excuse.... fgt.

I don't agree with Trump on banning Muslims and certainly not on registering them. I think his concern, rightly or wrongly is what may come if they don't study it and get a handle on it and take action.
aquilla
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:32:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 8:04:09 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com...
going to ban muslims from entering America because fear of "muslims murdering" attacks... out of 355+ mass shootings (2015) in the U.S only 3 by muslim suspects? r u sh1tting me? what a clown im sure u have there plenty more murdrers of chirstian/atheist backgrounds? or its part his new plan agenda to invade more muslims lands to kill millions and steal resources as an excuse.... fgt.

You've been listening to the lying media instead of listening to the words that come out of Donald Trump's mouth.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:36:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 11:32:17 PM, aquilla wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:04:09 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com...
going to ban muslims from entering America because fear of "muslims murdering" attacks... out of 355+ mass shootings (2015) in the U.S only 3 by muslim suspects? r u sh1tting me? what a clown im sure u have there plenty more murdrers of chirstian/atheist backgrounds? or its part his new plan agenda to invade more muslims lands to kill millions and steal resources as an excuse.... fgt.

You've been listening to the lying media instead of listening to the words that come out of Donald Trump's mouth.

I'm a moderate who does not support Trump. But in fairness, the current President has redefined the word "liar".
aquilla
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:38:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 11:36:32 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/20/2015 11:32:17 PM, aquilla wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:04:09 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com...
going to ban muslims from entering America because fear of "muslims murdering" attacks... out of 355+ mass shootings (2015) in the U.S only 3 by muslim suspects? r u sh1tting me? what a clown im sure u have there plenty more murdrers of chirstian/atheist backgrounds? or its part his new plan agenda to invade more muslims lands to kill millions and steal resources as an excuse.... fgt.

You've been listening to the lying media instead of listening to the words that come out of Donald Trump's mouth.

I'm a moderate who does not support Trump. But in fairness, the current President has redefined the word "liar". : :

All God's people are liars so that's why I don't vote for any of them. Once God kills all the flesh of men in this first age before his created people wake up in their new bodies in Paradise, then we can start trusting each other's stories.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 2:47:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

Highly unlikely. They're letting in children, women, and old people.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

Same thinking and strategy happened in WWI. Need I remind you what happened afterwards?
geho89
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 2:58:49 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 11:32:17 PM, aquilla wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:04:09 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com...
going to ban muslims from entering America because fear of "muslims murdering" attacks... out of 355+ mass shootings (2015) in the U.S only 3 by muslim suspects? r u sh1tting me? what a clown im sure u have there plenty more murdrers of chirstian/atheist backgrounds? or its part his new plan agenda to invade more muslims lands to kill millions and steal resources as an excuse.... fgt.

You've been listening to the lying media instead of listening to the words that come out of Donald Trump's mouth.

Have you even fact checked the things that Donald Trump claimed or are you blindly following him because of confirmation bias?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 3:19:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 2:47:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

Highly unlikely. They're letting in children, women, and old people.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

Same thinking and strategy happened in WWI. Need I remind you what happened afterwards?

You're saying that Syria was invaded during WWI? The Ottoman Empire was, but there was already a fairly stable government over the Ottoman Empire in 1914. In this case Syria is in chaos. We can't really destabilise it any further. We can only help it by this point.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 6:53:16 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 3:19:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 2:47:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

Highly unlikely. They're letting in children, women, and old people.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

Same thinking and strategy happened in WWI. Need I remind you what happened afterwards?

You're saying that Syria was invaded during WWI? The Ottoman Empire was, but there was already a fairly stable government over the Ottoman Empire in 1914. In this case Syria is in chaos. We can't really destabilise it any further. We can only help it by this point.

No. World War I was also called "The war to end all wars" The US believed that it was necessary to "restore order" as you put it and make the world safe for democracy. I'm sure you know what happened after that. And doing the same in Syria will only make ISIS or some other theocrats or nationalists angry and rise to power in a totalitarian government like the one in Germany. History repeats itself.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 5:58:37 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 6:53:16 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/21/2015 3:19:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 2:47:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

Highly unlikely. They're letting in children, women, and old people.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

Same thinking and strategy happened in WWI. Need I remind you what happened afterwards?

You're saying that Syria was invaded during WWI? The Ottoman Empire was, but there was already a fairly stable government over the Ottoman Empire in 1914. In this case Syria is in chaos. We can't really destabilise it any further. We can only help it by this point.

No. World War I was also called "The war to end all wars" The US believed that it was necessary to "restore order" as you put it and make the world safe for democracy. I'm sure you know what happened after that. And doing the same in Syria will only make ISIS or some other theocrats or nationalists angry and rise to power in a totalitarian government like the one in Germany. History repeats itself.

You misunderstand the situation. Groups like the ISIL are able to rise because of power vacuums. Syria currently is experiencing a power vacuum, which is why the ISIL was able to rise there. I see no way for such a military intervention to further destabilize Syria; the most likely outcome this time, in contrast to Iraq which had a stable government immediately prior to the invasion, is a net increase in the stability of Syria, something which creates an environment detrimental to groups like the ISIL.
The situation here is not parallel to that of Iraq in 2003 or the Ottoman Empire during WW1.
The only reasons not to invade Syria are as following:
1. It'll incur a high cost for the U.S. like Iraq and Afghanistan did.
2. Instead, if we can get Russia to intervene instead of us we can see the situation in Syria fixed while our rival Russia incurs the costs.
However, I feel that the conflict should be resolved as quickly as possible, and waiting on Russia isn't a good strategy because:
A. It's questionable whether Russia is willing to single-handedly intervene to the extent needed to end the war.
B. Even if they do they'll assuredly just prop up the Ba'athist regime instead of granting the Syrian people a proper democracy and a decent government.
C. By the time Russia does this thousands more will have died and thousands more refugees will have flooded into Europe.

If a US-French-Russian coalition invades Syria, with all three sides agreeing to split the costs and provide for the needed manpower and equipment equally, then U.S. costs will be minimized. Also, Syria is smaller than Iraq and has half the population. It should be inherently easier to handle than Syria.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 6:04:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 8:13:41 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I don't see what taking Middle Eastern resources has to do with anything...

well history doesnt lie... they have to keep the public frightened to continue their objective goals. next station would be africa/south america.
Never fart near dog
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 6:06:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 5:58:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:53:16 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/21/2015 3:19:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 2:47:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

Highly unlikely. They're letting in children, women, and old people.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

Same thinking and strategy happened in WWI. Need I remind you what happened afterwards?

You're saying that Syria was invaded during WWI? The Ottoman Empire was, but there was already a fairly stable government over the Ottoman Empire in 1914. In this case Syria is in chaos. We can't really destabilise it any further. We can only help it by this point.

No. World War I was also called "The war to end all wars" The US believed that it was necessary to "restore order" as you put it and make the world safe for democracy. I'm sure you know what happened after that. And doing the same in Syria will only make ISIS or some other theocrats or nationalists angry and rise to power in a totalitarian government like the one in Germany. History repeats itself.

You misunderstand the situation. Groups like the ISIL are able to rise because of power vacuums. Syria currently is experiencing a power vacuum, which is why the ISIL was able to rise there. I see no way for such a military intervention to further destabilize Syria; the most likely outcome this time, in contrast to Iraq which had a stable government immediately prior to the invasion, is a net increase in the stability of Syria, something which creates an environment detrimental to groups like the ISIL.
The situation here is not parallel to that of Iraq in 2003 or the Ottoman Empire during WW1.
The only reasons not to invade Syria are as following:
1. It'll incur a high cost for the U.S. like Iraq and Afghanistan did.
2. Instead, if we can get Russia to intervene instead of us we can see the situation in Syria fixed while our rival Russia incurs the costs.
However, I feel that the conflict should be resolved as quickly as possible, and waiting on Russia isn't a good strategy because:
A. It's questionable whether Russia is willing to single-handedly intervene to the extent needed to end the war.
B. Even if they do they'll assuredly just prop up the Ba'athist regime instead of granting the Syrian people a proper democracy and a decent government.
C. By the time Russia does this thousands more will have died and thousands more refugees will have flooded into Europe.

If a US-French-Russian coalition invades Syria, with all three sides agreeing to split the costs and provide for the needed manpower and equipment equally, then U.S. costs will be minimized. Also, Syria is smaller than Iraq and has half the population. It should be inherently easier to handle than Syria.

There is nothing wrong with your reasoning, however... This is still not a positive for us doing anything at all, just reasons for why is could be easier than Iraq
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 6:16:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

we talking about large amount of people (millions..) sure u will find there of every kind of people from normal people to psychopath to traumatized masses. but 99.99% of the refugees im sure just running from war. so u prefer to let poeple die like animals just for small few of terrorists? u have plenty troublemakers everywhere u cant really see the differences before and after.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

they trying to flee from war and u prefer them to go back? the coalition makes the war more intense every day hundreds of people die the problem with terrorists is the americans always make people angry after destroying countries utterly the problem is West invetion not crazy muslims which btw created by killing millions of poeple and making many of them to hate invaders like the United Snakes... dont kill they wont kill u back simple as that.
Never fart near dog
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 6:16:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 6:06:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/21/2015 5:58:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:53:16 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/21/2015 3:19:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 2:47:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

Highly unlikely. They're letting in children, women, and old people.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

Same thinking and strategy happened in WWI. Need I remind you what happened afterwards?

You're saying that Syria was invaded during WWI? The Ottoman Empire was, but there was already a fairly stable government over the Ottoman Empire in 1914. In this case Syria is in chaos. We can't really destabilise it any further. We can only help it by this point.

No. World War I was also called "The war to end all wars" The US believed that it was necessary to "restore order" as you put it and make the world safe for democracy. I'm sure you know what happened after that. And doing the same in Syria will only make ISIS or some other theocrats or nationalists angry and rise to power in a totalitarian government like the one in Germany. History repeats itself.

You misunderstand the situation. Groups like the ISIL are able to rise because of power vacuums. Syria currently is experiencing a power vacuum, which is why the ISIL was able to rise there. I see no way for such a military intervention to further destabilize Syria; the most likely outcome this time, in contrast to Iraq which had a stable government immediately prior to the invasion, is a net increase in the stability of Syria, something which creates an environment detrimental to groups like the ISIL.
The situation here is not parallel to that of Iraq in 2003 or the Ottoman Empire during WW1.
The only reasons not to invade Syria are as following:
1. It'll incur a high cost for the U.S. like Iraq and Afghanistan did.
2. Instead, if we can get Russia to intervene instead of us we can see the situation in Syria fixed while our rival Russia incurs the costs.
However, I feel that the conflict should be resolved as quickly as possible, and waiting on Russia isn't a good strategy because:
A. It's questionable whether Russia is willing to single-handedly intervene to the extent needed to end the war.
B. Even if they do they'll assuredly just prop up the Ba'athist regime instead of granting the Syrian people a proper democracy and a decent government.
C. By the time Russia does this thousands more will have died and thousands more refugees will have flooded into Europe.

If a US-French-Russian coalition invades Syria, with all three sides agreeing to split the costs and provide for the needed manpower and equipment equally, then U.S. costs will be minimized. Also, Syria is smaller than Iraq and has half the population. It should be inherently easier to handle than Syria.

There is nothing wrong with your reasoning, however... This is still not a positive for us doing anything at all, just reasons for why is could be easier than Iraq

So ending a war that has killed more than 250,000 people, forced hundreds of thousands of Syrians to become refugees, destroyed most of Syria's infrastructure, and allowed Syrian to become a safe haven for terrorists isn't a good reason?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 6:26:53 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 6:16:05 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

we talking about large amount of people (millions..) sure u will find there of every kind of people from normal people to psychopath to traumatized masses. but 99.99% of the refugees im sure just running from war. so u prefer to let poeple die like animals just for small few of terrorists? u have plenty troublemakers everywhere u cant really see the differences before and after.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

they trying to flee from war and u prefer them to go back? the coalition makes the war more intense every day hundreds of people die the problem with terrorists is the americans always make people angry after destroying countries utterly the problem is West invetion not crazy muslims which btw created by killing millions of poeple and making many of them to hate invaders like the United Snakes... dont kill they wont kill u back simple as that.

Yes, I will admit that the current strategy pursued by the U.S. and Russia (aiding one specific side, bombing the other, etc) is probably making things worse. The strategy I'm proposing won't.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 6:59:02 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I would also like to point out that over 10 million Syrians have been forced out of their homes by the fighting.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
AbuJarir
Posts: 91
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 7:03:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 8:04:09 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com...
going to ban muslims from entering America because fear of "muslims murdering" attacks... out of 355+ mass shootings (2015) in the U.S only 3 by muslim suspects? r u sh1tting me? what a clown im sure u have there plenty more murdrers of chirstian/atheist backgrounds? or its part his new plan agenda to invade more muslims lands to kill millions and steal resources as an excuse.... fgt.

It is he supports Assad who is a Nusayri and Russia.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 7:54:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 6:16:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:06:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/21/2015 5:58:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:53:16 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/21/2015 3:19:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 2:47:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

Highly unlikely. They're letting in children, women, and old people.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

Same thinking and strategy happened in WWI. Need I remind you what happened afterwards?

You're saying that Syria was invaded during WWI? The Ottoman Empire was, but there was already a fairly stable government over the Ottoman Empire in 1914. In this case Syria is in chaos. We can't really destabilise it any further. We can only help it by this point.

No. World War I was also called "The war to end all wars" The US believed that it was necessary to "restore order" as you put it and make the world safe for democracy. I'm sure you know what happened after that. And doing the same in Syria will only make ISIS or some other theocrats or nationalists angry and rise to power in a totalitarian government like the one in Germany. History repeats itself.

You misunderstand the situation. Groups like the ISIL are able to rise because of power vacuums. Syria currently is experiencing a power vacuum, which is why the ISIL was able to rise there. I see no way for such a military intervention to further destabilize Syria; the most likely outcome this time, in contrast to Iraq which had a stable government immediately prior to the invasion, is a net increase in the stability of Syria, something which creates an environment detrimental to groups like the ISIL.
The situation here is not parallel to that of Iraq in 2003 or the Ottoman Empire during WW1.
The only reasons not to invade Syria are as following:
1. It'll incur a high cost for the U.S. like Iraq and Afghanistan did.
2. Instead, if we can get Russia to intervene instead of us we can see the situation in Syria fixed while our rival Russia incurs the costs.
However, I feel that the conflict should be resolved as quickly as possible, and waiting on Russia isn't a good strategy because:
A. It's questionable whether Russia is willing to single-handedly intervene to the extent needed to end the war.
B. Even if they do they'll assuredly just prop up the Ba'athist regime instead of granting the Syrian people a proper democracy and a decent government.
C. By the time Russia does this thousands more will have died and thousands more refugees will have flooded into Europe.

If a US-French-Russian coalition invades Syria, with all three sides agreeing to split the costs and provide for the needed manpower and equipment equally, then U.S. costs will be minimized. Also, Syria is smaller than Iraq and has half the population. It should be inherently easier to handle than Syria.

There is nothing wrong with your reasoning, however... This is still not a positive for us doing anything at all, just reasons for why is could be easier than Iraq

So ending a war that has killed more than 250,000 people, forced hundreds of thousands of Syrians to become refugees, destroyed most of Syria's infrastructure, and allowed Syrian to become a safe haven for terrorists isn't a good reason?

Funny. Same reasons for stopping the Iraq war, right?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 8:08:59 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 7:54:50 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:16:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:06:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/21/2015 5:58:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:53:16 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/21/2015 3:19:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 2:47:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

Highly unlikely. They're letting in children, women, and old people.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

Same thinking and strategy happened in WWI. Need I remind you what happened afterwards?

You're saying that Syria was invaded during WWI? The Ottoman Empire was, but there was already a fairly stable government over the Ottoman Empire in 1914. In this case Syria is in chaos. We can't really destabilise it any further. We can only help it by this point.

No. World War I was also called "The war to end all wars" The US believed that it was necessary to "restore order" as you put it and make the world safe for democracy. I'm sure you know what happened after that. And doing the same in Syria will only make ISIS or some other theocrats or nationalists angry and rise to power in a totalitarian government like the one in Germany. History repeats itself.

You misunderstand the situation. Groups like the ISIL are able to rise because of power vacuums. Syria currently is experiencing a power vacuum, which is why the ISIL was able to rise there. I see no way for such a military intervention to further destabilize Syria; the most likely outcome this time, in contrast to Iraq which had a stable government immediately prior to the invasion, is a net increase in the stability of Syria, something which creates an environment detrimental to groups like the ISIL.
The situation here is not parallel to that of Iraq in 2003 or the Ottoman Empire during WW1.
The only reasons not to invade Syria are as following:
1. It'll incur a high cost for the U.S. like Iraq and Afghanistan did.
2. Instead, if we can get Russia to intervene instead of us we can see the situation in Syria fixed while our rival Russia incurs the costs.
However, I feel that the conflict should be resolved as quickly as possible, and waiting on Russia isn't a good strategy because:
A. It's questionable whether Russia is willing to single-handedly intervene to the extent needed to end the war.
B. Even if they do they'll assuredly just prop up the Ba'athist regime instead of granting the Syrian people a proper democracy and a decent government.
C. By the time Russia does this thousands more will have died and thousands more refugees will have flooded into Europe.

If a US-French-Russian coalition invades Syria, with all three sides agreeing to split the costs and provide for the needed manpower and equipment equally, then U.S. costs will be minimized. Also, Syria is smaller than Iraq and has half the population. It should be inherently easier to handle than Syria.

There is nothing wrong with your reasoning, however... This is still not a positive for us doing anything at all, just reasons for why is could be easier than Iraq

So ending a war that has killed more than 250,000 people, forced hundreds of thousands of Syrians to become refugees, destroyed most of Syria's infrastructure, and allowed Syrian to become a safe haven for terrorists isn't a good reason?

Funny. Same reasons for stopping the Iraq war, right?

Which Iraq War are you referring to? The Iraq-Iran War? The Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait? Or the ISIL insurgency?
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
12/21/2015 8:17:02 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 8:08:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 7:54:50 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:16:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:06:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/21/2015 5:58:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:53:16 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/21/2015 3:19:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 2:47:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

Highly unlikely. They're letting in children, women, and old people.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

Same thinking and strategy happened in WWI. Need I remind you what happened afterwards?

You're saying that Syria was invaded during WWI? The Ottoman Empire was, but there was already a fairly stable government over the Ottoman Empire in 1914. In this case Syria is in chaos. We can't really destabilise it any further. We can only help it by this point.

No. World War I was also called "The war to end all wars" The US believed that it was necessary to "restore order" as you put it and make the world safe for democracy. I'm sure you know what happened after that. And doing the same in Syria will only make ISIS or some other theocrats or nationalists angry and rise to power in a totalitarian government like the one in Germany. History repeats itself.

You misunderstand the situation. Groups like the ISIL are able to rise because of power vacuums. Syria currently is experiencing a power vacuum, which is why the ISIL was able to rise there. I see no way for such a military intervention to further destabilize Syria; the most likely outcome this time, in contrast to Iraq which had a stable government immediately prior to the invasion, is a net increase in the stability of Syria, something which creates an environment detrimental to groups like the ISIL.
The situation here is not parallel to that of Iraq in 2003 or the Ottoman Empire during WW1.
The only reasons not to invade Syria are as following:
1. It'll incur a high cost for the U.S. like Iraq and Afghanistan did.
2. Instead, if we can get Russia to intervene instead of us we can see the situation in Syria fixed while our rival Russia incurs the costs.
However, I feel that the conflict should be resolved as quickly as possible, and waiting on Russia isn't a good strategy because:
A. It's questionable whether Russia is willing to single-handedly intervene to the extent needed to end the war.
B. Even if they do they'll assuredly just prop up the Ba'athist regime instead of granting the Syrian people a proper democracy and a decent government.
C. By the time Russia does this thousands more will have died and thousands more refugees will have flooded into Europe.

If a US-French-Russian coalition invades Syria, with all three sides agreeing to split the costs and provide for the needed manpower and equipment equally, then U.S. costs will be minimized. Also, Syria is smaller than Iraq and has half the population. It should be inherently easier to handle than Syria.

There is nothing wrong with your reasoning, however... This is still not a positive for us doing anything at all, just reasons for why is could be easier than Iraq

So ending a war that has killed more than 250,000 people, forced hundreds of thousands of Syrians to become refugees, destroyed most of Syria's infrastructure, and allowed Syrian to become a safe haven for terrorists isn't a good reason?

Funny. Same reasons for stopping the Iraq war, right?

Which Iraq War are you referring to? The Iraq-Iran War? The Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait? Or the ISIL insurgency?

The war started by GHW in 03 resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties, forcing thousands to become refugees etc. etc.

Yea, that war, and you know exactly what I meant.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 8:31:59 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 5:58:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:53:16 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/21/2015 3:19:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 2:47:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

Highly unlikely. They're letting in children, women, and old people.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

Same thinking and strategy happened in WWI. Need I remind you what happened afterwards?

You're saying that Syria was invaded during WWI? The Ottoman Empire was, but there was already a fairly stable government over the Ottoman Empire in 1914. In this case Syria is in chaos. We can't really destabilise it any further. We can only help it by this point.

No. World War I was also called "The war to end all wars" The US believed that it was necessary to "restore order" as you put it and make the world safe for democracy. I'm sure you know what happened after that. And doing the same in Syria will only make ISIS or some other theocrats or nationalists angry and rise to power in a totalitarian government like the one in Germany. History repeats itself.

You misunderstand the situation. Groups like the ISIL are able to rise because of power vacuums. Syria currently is experiencing a power vacuum, which is why the ISIL was able to rise there. I see no way for such a military intervention to further destabilize Syria; the most likely outcome this time, in contrast to Iraq which had a stable government immediately prior to the invasion, is a net increase in the stability of Syria, something which creates an environment detrimental to groups like the ISIL.

You misunderstand what I'm saying about this being the same kind of thinking of entering the war. The reasons are virtually the same: restore order and this is what's necessary to make the world safe for democracy which, as you know, didn't happen. I'm not talking about the Ottoman Empire. I'm talking about Europe.

And of course further military intervention would destabilize Syria. That's precisely why I made the comparison to WWI. That's precisely why I pointed out that they believed it would be "the war to end all wars". The lesson we ought to have learned is that you can't end war with war. It just causes more war. The ISIS mentality is strengthened by the death and destruction of innocent lives. It's strengthened by showing young people in the region how the United States and its allies have destroyed your homeland, your families, desecrated the sacredness of their land, etc.

The situation here is not parallel to that of Iraq in 2003 or the Ottoman Empire during WW1.

The Iraq war gave rise to ISIS. Everyone says it was a mistake. And everyone would say the same if there was a Syria war.

The only reasons not to invade Syria are as following:
1. It'll incur a high cost for the U.S. like Iraq and Afghanistan did.

Which means raising taxes on the middle class, yes.

2. Instead, if we can get Russia to intervene instead of us we can see the situation in Syria fixed while our rival Russia incurs the costs.

Russia hasn't made any progress on its own.

However, I feel that the conflict should be resolved as quickly as possible, and waiting on Russia isn't a good strategy because:

Unfortunately you can't "fix" these sorts of things as quickly as possible. Because the problem isn't so much as going around killing people who hold a toxic idea. The solution is to get people to understand, especially those that haven't been radicalized, that the idea is toxic.

A. It's questionable whether Russia is willing to single-handedly intervene to the extent needed to end the war.

If you mean Syrian war, Putin supports Assad.

B. Even if they do they'll assuredly just prop up the Ba'athist regime instead of granting the Syrian people a proper democracy and a decent government.
C. By the time Russia does this thousands more will have died and thousands more refugees will have flooded into Europe.

If a US-French-Russian coalition invades Syria, with all three sides agreeing to split the costs and provide for the needed manpower and equipment equally, then U.S. costs will be minimized. Also, Syria is smaller than Iraq and has half the population. It should be inherently easier to handle than Syria.

Again, Putin doesn't want Assad overthrown. So if we go to war in Syria, we're also at war with Russia.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 9:17:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 8:17:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/21/2015 8:08:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 7:54:50 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:16:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:06:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/21/2015 5:58:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:53:16 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/21/2015 3:19:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 2:47:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

Highly unlikely. They're letting in children, women, and old people.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

Same thinking and strategy happened in WWI. Need I remind you what happened afterwards?

You're saying that Syria was invaded during WWI? The Ottoman Empire was, but there was already a fairly stable government over the Ottoman Empire in 1914. In this case Syria is in chaos. We can't really destabilise it any further. We can only help it by this point.

No. World War I was also called "The war to end all wars" The US believed that it was necessary to "restore order" as you put it and make the world safe for democracy. I'm sure you know what happened after that. And doing the same in Syria will only make ISIS or some other theocrats or nationalists angry and rise to power in a totalitarian government like the one in Germany. History repeats itself.

You misunderstand the situation. Groups like the ISIL are able to rise because of power vacuums. Syria currently is experiencing a power vacuum, which is why the ISIL was able to rise there. I see no way for such a military intervention to further destabilize Syria; the most likely outcome this time, in contrast to Iraq which had a stable government immediately prior to the invasion, is a net increase in the stability of Syria, something which creates an environment detrimental to groups like the ISIL.
The situation here is not parallel to that of Iraq in 2003 or the Ottoman Empire during WW1.
The only reasons not to invade Syria are as following:
1. It'll incur a high cost for the U.S. like Iraq and Afghanistan did.
2. Instead, if we can get Russia to intervene instead of us we can see the situation in Syria fixed while our rival Russia incurs the costs.
However, I feel that the conflict should be resolved as quickly as possible, and waiting on Russia isn't a good strategy because:
A. It's questionable whether Russia is willing to single-handedly intervene to the extent needed to end the war.
B. Even if they do they'll assuredly just prop up the Ba'athist regime instead of granting the Syrian people a proper democracy and a decent government.
C. By the time Russia does this thousands more will have died and thousands more refugees will have flooded into Europe.

If a US-French-Russian coalition invades Syria, with all three sides agreeing to split the costs and provide for the needed manpower and equipment equally, then U.S. costs will be minimized. Also, Syria is smaller than Iraq and has half the population. It should be inherently easier to handle than Syria.

There is nothing wrong with your reasoning, however... This is still not a positive for us doing anything at all, just reasons for why is could be easier than Iraq

So ending a war that has killed more than 250,000 people, forced hundreds of thousands of Syrians to become refugees, destroyed most of Syria's infrastructure, and allowed Syrian to become a safe haven for terrorists isn't a good reason?

Funny. Same reasons for stopping the Iraq war, right?

Which Iraq War are you referring to? The Iraq-Iran War? The Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait? Or the ISIL insurgency?

The war started by GHW in 03 resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties, forcing thousands to become refugees etc. etc.

Yea, that war, and you know exactly what I meant.

1. Ah, you mean the war started because virtually everyone believed that Iraq was building WMDs and because we even had an informant who made the claim that this was happening? A claim that might have even been true (I.e. destruction of evidence in Hussein's final days of power could be the reason that no such evidence was found), by the way.
A war which helped bring democracy to Iraq? A war which caused us to no longer need the sanctions which killed at least as many people as the war did? A war that caused Iraq to be our ally instead of our enemy? A war that allowed us to have bases in Iraq? A war that could've been just the first step in dismantling the Axis of Evil and making the post-Cold War world safe had the WMDs been found? That war?

2. Even if the 2003 Iraq War was a bad idea and even if we did exactly the same things then that the Syrian Civil War is doing now, that does in no way negate the fact that the Syrian Civil War needs to be put to an end.
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
12/21/2015 9:22:08 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
1. Ah, you mean the war started because virtually everyone believed that Iraq was building WMDs and because we even had an informant who made the claim that this was happening?
Lots, but not everyone. Sanders, myself and the scads of people at rally's like this thought it was fiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

As to "made it clear" it was not clear. It was much more clear that they were NOT making new WMDs. Read Clark.

A claim that might have even been true (I.e. destruction of evidence in Hussein's final days of power could be the reason that no such evidence was found), by the way.
This myth keeps going.

A war which helped bring democracy to Iraq? A war which caused us to no longer need the sanctions which killed at least as many people as the war did? A war that caused Iraq to be our ally instead of our enemy? A war that allowed us to have bases in Iraq? A war that could've been just the first step in dismantling the Axis of Evil and making the post-Cold War world safe had the WMDs been found? That war?
Yea, that war.... Just without the rose colored glasses.


2. Even if the 2003 Iraq War was a bad idea and even if we did exactly the same things then that the Syrian Civil War is doing now, that does in no way negate the fact that the Syrian Civil War needs to be put to an end.
Why do WE need to be involved with their civil war? That is where we started, right?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 9:32:30 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 8:31:59 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/21/2015 5:58:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 6:53:16 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/21/2015 3:19:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/21/2015 2:47:59 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 12/20/2015 8:17:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, though, the ISIL is likely to have its people infiltrate Iraqi and Syrian refugees (why wouldn't they, after all?). Letting in these refugees will increase the terrorism rate almost assuredly.

Highly unlikely. They're letting in children, women, and old people.

This is why I've advocated letting the refugees go home instead by means of a US-French-Russian coalition invading Syria and restoring order and ending the war.

Same thinking and strategy happened in WWI. Need I remind you what happened afterwards?

You're saying that Syria was invaded during WWI? The Ottoman Empire was, but there was already a fairly stable government over the Ottoman Empire in 1914. In this case Syria is in chaos. We can't really destabilise it any further. We can only help it by this point.

No. World War I was also called "The war to end all wars" The US believed that it was necessary to "restore order" as you put it and make the world safe for democracy. I'm sure you know what happened after that. And doing the same in Syria will only make ISIS or some other theocrats or nationalists angry and rise to power in a totalitarian government like the one in Germany. History repeats itself.

You misunderstand the situation. Groups like the ISIL are able to rise because of power vacuums. Syria currently is experiencing a power vacuum, which is why the ISIL was able to rise there. I see no way for such a military intervention to further destabilize Syria; the most likely outcome this time, in contrast to Iraq which had a stable government immediately prior to the invasion, is a net increase in the stability of Syria, something which creates an environment detrimental to groups like the ISIL.

You misunderstand what I'm saying about this being the same kind of thinking of entering the war. The reasons are virtually the same: restore order and this is what's necessary to make the world safe for democracy which, as you know, didn't happen. I'm not talking about the Ottoman Empire. I'm talking about Europe.

Germany was destabilized as a result of WWI and it was already stable prior to it. This isn't a good comparison either.

And of course further military intervention would destabilize Syria. That's precisely why I made the comparison to WWI. That's precisely why I pointed out that they believed it would be "the war to end all wars". The lesson we ought to have learned is that you can't end war with war. It just causes more war. The ISIS mentality is strengthened by the death and destruction of innocent lives. It's strengthened by showing young people in the region how the United States and its allies have destroyed your homeland, your families, desecrated the sacredness of their land, etc.

There is no magical rule that you "can't end war with war". WWII was ended not entirely by but largely by US military intervention. Unlike Iraq, the Syrian people at large would probably not resent the United States for its intervention; it would be allowing 10 million people to return to their homes and it would END the fighting, not further it. If anything, we'd have the eternal gratitude of the Syrian people. There may be a few retards who'd see this as imperialism and they'd become radicalized as a result, but many of these people would've been radicalized either way by the violence already afflicting Syria and by the strong presence of the ISIL in the eastern part of Syria.

The situation here is not parallel to that of Iraq in 2003 or the Ottoman Empire during WW1.

The Iraq war gave rise to ISIS. Everyone says it was a mistake. And everyone would say the same if there was a Syria war.

There's already "ISIS" in Syria. What I'm trying to say is that you can't destabilize something which is already destabilized. Since destabilization was the reason for the Iraqi insurgency and since the opposite of destabilization would result as a result of US military intervention, the cause of a "Syrian insurgency" would have to be different.

The only reasons not to invade Syria are as following:
1. It'll incur a high cost for the U.S. like Iraq and Afghanistan did.

Which means raising taxes on the middle class, yes.

I'd be okay with raised taxes on the rich for the duration of the conflict.

2. Instead, if we can get Russia to intervene instead of us we can see the situation in Syria fixed while our rival Russia incurs the costs.

Russia hasn't made any progress on its own.

However, I feel that the conflict should be resolved as quickly as possible, and waiting on Russia isn't a good strategy because:

Unfortunately you can't "fix" these sorts of things as quickly as possible. Because the problem isn't so much as going around killing people who hold a toxic idea. The solution is to get people to understand, especially those that haven't been radicalized, that the idea is toxic.

Syria didn't have a major radicalization problem prior to the destabilization. Re-stabilizing Syria will inevitably reduce radicalization.

A. It's questionable whether Russia is willing to single-handedly intervene to the extent needed to end the war.

If you mean Syrian war, Putin supports Assad.

B. Even if they do they'll assuredly just prop up the Ba'athist regime instead of granting the Syrian people a proper democracy and a decent government.
C. By the time Russia does this thousands more will have died and thousands more refugees will have flooded into Europe.

If a US-French-Russian coalition invades Syria, with all three sides agreeing to split the costs and provide for the needed manpower and equipment equally, then U.S. costs will be minimized. Also, Syria is smaller than Iraq and has half the population. It should be inherently easier to handle than Syria.

Again, Putin doesn't want Assad overthrown. So if we go to war in Syria, we're also at war with Russia.

The Russians realize that Assad's chances of survival are slim. In this scenario the coalition would oversee free elections in Syria. If the Syrian people want Assad (and there's enough Assad supporters for Assad to possibly win) then the Ba'athists will remain in power. In this case there is at least a chance for Russia of the Ba'athists remaining in power. Also, being a part of this coalition will allow the Russians to be seen as a major world power by playing a significant role in the occupation and to maintain at least some degree of influence over Syria (they would, after all, have troops stationed in the country). There is some reason for Russia to agree to all this.
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
12/21/2015 9:34:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
For what its worth. The Powell speech (the mobile labs, the vial etc.) was widely criticized at the time. Few I knew, liberal or conservative, gave it much credit.

This narrative that "everyone believed" - either in Washington, the Europe governments, or the common people is just revisionists.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 9:50:53 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 9:34:32 PM, TBR wrote:
For what its worth. The Powell speech (the mobile labs, the vial etc.) was widely criticized at the time. Few I knew, liberal or conservative, gave it much credit.

This narrative that "everyone believed" - either in Washington, the Europe governments, or the common people is just revisionists.

Okay then. There may have been many people who were skeptical. However, at the time all the evidence seemed to point towards Iraq having such weapons (i.e. the November 26 2002 conversation between Republican Guard members caught on tape presented to the UN in Powell's speech) and the doubters were doubting despite all the evidence being against them, even if the claims of the doubters were later vindicated. All the evidence pointed toward Iraq having or building these weapons and the Iraqi Government did act exactly like a state which had them or was building them.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid