Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What intervention was worse?

UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 7:14:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Definitely Iraq. After Vietnam, the North government managed the stabilize and consolidate it's new territory much better than their Korean counterparts. Leaving the government free of any internal threats and with the exception of the Khmer Rouge, also free of external threats.

Intervening in Iraq however, gave way to the complete destabilization of the region, skyrocketed unemployment among the military, and fanned the flames for sectarian violence. Eventually giving way to the rise of ISIS.

Invading Iraq opened a huge can of worms which likely will not be closed in the foreseeable future.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 7:23:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 7:03:11 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Going to Iraq?

or

Going to Vietnam?


Iraq, definitely
Vietnam was already embroiled in a civil war when we intervened. While it did result in the destabilization of Cambodia and Laos, and the US committed numerous war crimes in vietnam, in Iraq we destabilized the entire region, and left the entire province in anarchy. We took out one despot and then 10 more popped up.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 7:25:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 7:14:55 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Definitely Iraq. After Vietnam, the North government managed the stabilize and consolidate it's new territory much better than their Korean counterparts. Leaving the government free of any internal threats and with the exception of the Khmer Rouge, also free of external threats.

Intervening in Iraq however, gave way to the complete destabilization of the region, skyrocketed unemployment among the military, and fanned the flames for sectarian violence. Eventually giving way to the rise of ISIS.

Invading Iraq opened a huge can of worms which likely will not be closed in the foreseeable future.

Also remember that the Vietnamese military quashed the Khmer Rouge. And that the Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and China.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 7:30:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 7:03:11 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Going to Iraq?

or

Going to Vietnam?


Pulling out of Iraq and going to Libya.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 7:41:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

Long term success? It's been 15 years and we are now going BACK to war in Iraq. After we pulled out of Vietnam, the country was stabilized within the a year of the fall of Saigon and The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was Removed from power by 1979. While the Khmer Rouge insurgency lasted 10 more years, they were effectively defeated by 1982. So Southeast Asia was stable within 7-12 years.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 7:51:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

Neither were a success. The word Iraq and success should never even be used in the same sentence. We achieved literally nothing from going to Iraq.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 7:52:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 7:41:53 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

Long term success? It's been 15 years and we are now going BACK to war in Iraq. After we pulled out of Vietnam, the country was stabilized within the a year of the fall of Saigon and The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was Removed from power by 1979. While the Khmer Rouge insurgency lasted 10 more years, they were effectively defeated by 1982. So Southeast Asia was stable within 7-12 years.

It's been 13 years, and terror groups such as the ISIL only hold on to a small percentage of the country's land area. The rest of Iraq is on the road to progress.
In Vietnam, the U.S. government invested years and years into saving South Vietnam, only to see it fall to the North.
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
7/25/2016 7:55:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 7:51:22 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

Neither were a success. The word Iraq and success should never even be used in the same sentence. We achieved literally nothing from going to Iraq.

Yes we did. The Ba'athist regime maintained the material and intellectual base to rebuild the country's WMD program quickly after sanctions were dropped. The sanctions, meanwhile, had killed half a million Iraqis so simply having Iraq permanently sanctioned was not an option.
In invading Iraq, the Iraqi WMD crisis was laid to rest for good.
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
7/25/2016 7:59:01 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Whenever people think of the nation of Iraq, they no longer think "Rogue State" or "Threat to all other countries in the region". They think of the terrorists in Iraq, who are now in a state of decline.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 8:03:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 7:55:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:51:22 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

Neither were a success. The word Iraq and success should never even be used in the same sentence. We achieved literally nothing from going to Iraq.

Yes we did. The Ba'athist regime maintained the material and intellectual base to rebuild the country's WMD program quickly after sanctions were dropped. The sanctions, meanwhile, had killed half a million Iraqis so simply having Iraq permanently sanctioned was not an option.
In invading Iraq, the Iraqi WMD crisis was laid to rest for good.

I believe the CIA intel on the WMD was revealed to be false. Saddam did not have enough resources to build a nuclear weapon to attack the United States. Bush was mislead (or he pretended he was mislead) into thinking that Iraq would protect the U.S. Not to mention that the Bush government had attempted to link ties to Saddam and 9/11, despite the fact that Saddam was killing Islamic terrorists in his country, and was a very liberal muslim himself.

Keep in mind, the U.S was the one who allowed Iraq to get nuclear weapons back in the 80's...

Like Utherpenguin said, Invading Iraq did not achieve anything. He basically went over why it was not successful.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 8:03:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 8:03:16 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:55:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:51:22 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

Neither were a success. The word Iraq and success should never even be used in the same sentence. We achieved literally nothing from going to Iraq.

Yes we did. The Ba'athist regime maintained the material and intellectual base to rebuild the country's WMD program quickly after sanctions were dropped. The sanctions, meanwhile, had killed half a million Iraqis so simply having Iraq permanently sanctioned was not an option.
In invading Iraq, the Iraqi WMD crisis was laid to rest for good.

I believe the CIA intel on the WMD was revealed to be false. Saddam did not have enough resources to build a nuclear weapon to attack the United States. Bush was mislead (or he pretended he was mislead) into thinking that Iraq would protect the U.S. Not to mention that the Bush government had attempted to link ties to Saddam and 9/11, despite the fact that Saddam was killing Islamic terrorists in his country, and was a very liberal muslim himself.

Keep in mind, the U.S was the one who allowed Iraq to get nuclear weapons back in the 80's...

Like Utherpenguin said, Invading Iraq did not achieve anything. He basically went over why it was not successful.

*Iraq would attack the U.S
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 8:13:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 8:03:16 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:55:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:51:22 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

Neither were a success. The word Iraq and success should never even be used in the same sentence. We achieved literally nothing from going to Iraq.

Yes we did. The Ba'athist regime maintained the material and intellectual base to rebuild the country's WMD program quickly after sanctions were dropped. The sanctions, meanwhile, had killed half a million Iraqis so simply having Iraq permanently sanctioned was not an option.
In invading Iraq, the Iraqi WMD crisis was laid to rest for good.

I believe the CIA intel on the WMD was revealed to be false. Saddam did not have enough resources to build a nuclear weapon to attack the United States. Bush was mislead (or he pretended he was mislead) into thinking that Iraq would protect the U.S. Not to mention that the Bush government had attempted to link ties to Saddam and 9/11, despite the fact that Saddam was killing Islamic terrorists in his country, and was a very liberal muslim himself.

We must count both chemical and nuclear weapons. Anyway, Bush's faulty intelligence told him that Iraq either currently possessed chemical weapons or had a functional chemical weapons program which was currently producing chemical weapons. This turned out to be false, provided that Iraq didn't destroy its chemical weapons stockpile at the last second and falsify documents pertaining to such. Anyways, according to the Iraq Survey Group's final report, which was issued AFTER the invasion, Iraq "had earlier ceased active WMD production and stockpiling. The report also found that Iraq had worked covertly to maintain the intellectual and physical capacity to produce WMDs and intended to restart production once sanctions were lifted." Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org...


Keep in mind, the U.S was the one who allowed Iraq to get nuclear weapons back in the 80's...

Like Utherpenguin said, Invading Iraq did not achieve anything. He basically went over why it was not successful.
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
7/25/2016 8:15:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
This is to say nothing of freeing the Kurds in Iraq from Arab Nationalist rule.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 8:40:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 8:13:26 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 8:03:16 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:55:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:51:22 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

Neither were a success. The word Iraq and success should never even be used in the same sentence. We achieved literally nothing from going to Iraq.

Yes we did. The Ba'athist regime maintained the material and intellectual base to rebuild the country's WMD program quickly after sanctions were dropped. The sanctions, meanwhile, had killed half a million Iraqis so simply having Iraq permanently sanctioned was not an option.
In invading Iraq, the Iraqi WMD crisis was laid to rest for good.

I believe the CIA intel on the WMD was revealed to be false. Saddam did not have enough resources to build a nuclear weapon to attack the United States. Bush was mislead (or he pretended he was mislead) into thinking that Iraq would protect the U.S. Not to mention that the Bush government had attempted to link ties to Saddam and 9/11, despite the fact that Saddam was killing Islamic terrorists in his country, and was a very liberal muslim himself.

We must count both chemical and nuclear weapons. Anyway, Bush's faulty intelligence told him that Iraq either currently possessed chemical weapons or had a functional chemical weapons program which was currently producing chemical weapons. This turned out to be false, provided that Iraq didn't destroy its chemical weapons stockpile at the last second and falsify documents pertaining to such. Anyways, according to the Iraq Survey Group's final report, which was issued AFTER the invasion, Iraq "had earlier ceased active WMD production and stockpiling. The report also found that Iraq had worked covertly to maintain the intellectual and physical capacity to produce WMDs and intended to restart production once sanctions were lifted." Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org...



Keep in mind, the U.S was the one who allowed Iraq to get nuclear weapons back in the 80's...

Like Utherpenguin said, Invading Iraq did not achieve anything. He basically went over why it was not successful.

The problem with this report is that it makes a lot of assumptions. Saddam has said he was "intending" to resume WMD activity, however there was no official guarantee of that. It is absolutely ridiculous to assume that an invasion of a country based on a paranoia that he might resume his WMD program is justified. Even when you include chemical weapons as you mentioned earlier, these weapons were not actively being created, rather they were there from previous wars. Infact, some weapons were manufactured by the U.S Army in 1918.

The complicated truth, then, is that part of the U.S. case for war was that the Iraqi government was hiding old, pre-1991 chemical weapons; such old chemical weapons were found in Iraq; but the U.S. case for war was still totally false because Saddam"s regime was not hiding those weapons.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 8:48:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Iraq was a zero national security threat to the USA , much like Russia is today. USA currently has no real military threats, except ISIS and what remains of al-qaeda.

The USA can't afford to intervene in every little power struggle across the globe. We suckass at nation building; and it costs a fortune in debt.

Vietnam was a mistake, Iraq was a yuge mistake.

Every intervention policy Hillary supported is a continuing yuge mistake.

End this, now.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 9:22:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 8:40:20 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 8:13:26 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 8:03:16 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:55:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:51:22 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

Neither were a success. The word Iraq and success should never even be used in the same sentence. We achieved literally nothing from going to Iraq.

Yes we did. The Ba'athist regime maintained the material and intellectual base to rebuild the country's WMD program quickly after sanctions were dropped. The sanctions, meanwhile, had killed half a million Iraqis so simply having Iraq permanently sanctioned was not an option.
In invading Iraq, the Iraqi WMD crisis was laid to rest for good.

I believe the CIA intel on the WMD was revealed to be false. Saddam did not have enough resources to build a nuclear weapon to attack the United States. Bush was mislead (or he pretended he was mislead) into thinking that Iraq would protect the U.S. Not to mention that the Bush government had attempted to link ties to Saddam and 9/11, despite the fact that Saddam was killing Islamic terrorists in his country, and was a very liberal muslim himself.

We must count both chemical and nuclear weapons. Anyway, Bush's faulty intelligence told him that Iraq either currently possessed chemical weapons or had a functional chemical weapons program which was currently producing chemical weapons. This turned out to be false, provided that Iraq didn't destroy its chemical weapons stockpile at the last second and falsify documents pertaining to such. Anyways, according to the Iraq Survey Group's final report, which was issued AFTER the invasion, Iraq "had earlier ceased active WMD production and stockpiling. The report also found that Iraq had worked covertly to maintain the intellectual and physical capacity to produce WMDs and intended to restart production once sanctions were lifted." Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org...



Keep in mind, the U.S was the one who allowed Iraq to get nuclear weapons back in the 80's...

Like Utherpenguin said, Invading Iraq did not achieve anything. He basically went over why it was not successful.

The problem with this report is that it makes a lot of assumptions. Saddam has said he was "intending" to resume WMD activity, however there was no official guarantee of that. It is absolutely ridiculous to assume that an invasion of a country based on a paranoia that he might resume his WMD program is justified. Even when you include chemical weapons as you mentioned earlier, these weapons were not actively being created, rather they were there from previous wars. Infact, some weapons were manufactured by the U.S Army in 1918.

Ah, I see. So Iraq was doing everything it could to maintain the ability to create new WMDs...so that it wouldn't? I mean, it's possible, I guess, but given this evidence the most reasonable assumption is that he intended on resuming WMD production after sanctions were dropped, and the evidence was compelling enough to act on this assumption. I mean, if Iraq was some decent benign government then they might've been entitled to their WMDs, but Iraq had already invaded two countries within the span of 35 years and used chemical weapons against its own citizens.

The complicated truth, then, is that part of the U.S. case for war was that the Iraqi government was hiding old, pre-1991 chemical weapons; such old chemical weapons were found in Iraq; but the U.S. case for war was still totally false because Saddam"s regime was not hiding those weapons.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 9:26:23 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

It wouldn't have been if we didn't pull out of vietnam. The communist government was more brutal than the American war crimes, and South Vietnam would exist today as a relatively prosperous nation had we stayed in.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 9:28:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 7:52:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:41:53 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

Long term success? It's been 15 years and we are now going BACK to war in Iraq. After we pulled out of Vietnam, the country was stabilized within the a year of the fall of Saigon and The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was Removed from power by 1979. While the Khmer Rouge insurgency lasted 10 more years, they were effectively defeated by 1982. So Southeast Asia was stable within 7-12 years.

It's been 13 years, and terror groups such as the ISIL only hold on to a small percentage of the country's land area. The rest of Iraq is on the road to progress.
In Vietnam, the U.S. government invested years and years into saving South Vietnam, only to see it fall to the North.

13 years, sorry
But this is the map of Iraq and Syria, does it look like its under control?
https://upload.wikimedia.org...

And on the road to progress? The human rights situation and economic outlook are abysmal for everywhere but Iraqi Kurdistan.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 9:29:33 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 7:55:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:51:22 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

Neither were a success. The word Iraq and success should never even be used in the same sentence. We achieved literally nothing from going to Iraq.

Yes we did. The Ba'athist regime maintained the material and intellectual base to rebuild the country's WMD program quickly after sanctions were dropped. The sanctions, meanwhile, had killed half a million Iraqis so simply having Iraq permanently sanctioned was not an option.
In invading Iraq, the Iraqi WMD crisis was laid to rest for good.

Those WMDs didn't exist. They were never found and it has since been revealed the entire thing was built on lies.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 9:36:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 8:15:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
This is to say nothing of freeing the Kurds in Iraq from Arab Nationalist rule.

We could have done that without invading. And the Kurds had already liberated much of the North for themselves. PUK and KDP forces had liberated much of the region
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 9:40:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 9:28:11 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:52:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:41:53 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

Long term success? It's been 15 years and we are now going BACK to war in Iraq. After we pulled out of Vietnam, the country was stabilized within the a year of the fall of Saigon and The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was Removed from power by 1979. While the Khmer Rouge insurgency lasted 10 more years, they were effectively defeated by 1982. So Southeast Asia was stable within 7-12 years.

It's been 13 years, and terror groups such as the ISIL only hold on to a small percentage of the country's land area. The rest of Iraq is on the road to progress.
In Vietnam, the U.S. government invested years and years into saving South Vietnam, only to see it fall to the North.

13 years, sorry
But this is the map of Iraq and Syria, does it look like its under control?
https://upload.wikimedia.org...

Yes, going by this map Iraq does look like it's under control to me. ISIL's territory is shrinking, and it comprises only a small percentage of the land area of Iraq.

And on the road to progress? The human rights situation and economic outlook are abysmal for everywhere but Iraqi Kurdistan.

Iraq's economy is certainly in better shape now than it was under the sanctions, and the present Iraqi government isn't genociding its own people so I don't see how the human rights situation is worse today.
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
7/25/2016 9:49:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 9:26:23 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

It wouldn't have been if we didn't pull out of vietnam. The communist government was more brutal than the American war crimes, and South Vietnam would exist today as a relatively prosperous nation had we stayed in.

South Vietnam was not a particularly democratic regime, but neither was South Korea or Taiwan. Both eventually became fully democratic and respectful of human rights, and I imagine that the same would've happened to South Vietnam by now had it survived.

To say that we "shouldn't have withdrawn" isn't as simple as it sounds. Public sentiments were strongly against staying in Vietnam, and I imagine that a person who supported continuing the war would not have been elected President.
A better solution would've been to keep the American news media out of Vietnam and limit the flow of information to the public. The Tet Offensive was a massive failure for the rebels in terms of casualties and the failure to achieve any short-term objectives, but because of the news media it became a victory for them, seeing as how it gave Americans the impression that we were losing the war. This would've allowed for the U.S. to stay in Vietnam a lot longer. Another thing we could've done would be to sponsor an anti-communist insurgency in North Vietnam as a retaliatory measure for the existence of the Viet Cong.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 9:59:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 9:49:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:26:23 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

It wouldn't have been if we didn't pull out of vietnam. The communist government was more brutal than the American war crimes, and South Vietnam would exist today as a relatively prosperous nation had we stayed in.

South Vietnam was not a particularly democratic regime, but neither was South Korea or Taiwan. Both eventually became fully democratic and respectful of human rights, and I imagine that the same would've happened to South Vietnam by now had it survived.

To say that we "shouldn't have withdrawn" isn't as simple as it sounds. Public sentiments were strongly against staying in Vietnam, and I imagine that a person who supported continuing the war would not have been elected President.
A better solution would've been to keep the American news media out of Vietnam and limit the flow of information to the public. The Tet Offensive was a massive failure for the rebels in terms of casualties and the failure to achieve any short-term objectives, but because of the news media it became a victory for them, seeing as how it gave Americans the impression that we were losing the war. This would've allowed for the U.S. to stay in Vietnam a lot longer. Another thing we could've done would be to sponsor an anti-communist insurgency in North Vietnam as a retaliatory measure for the existence of the Viet Cong.

I agree.

None the less, even if South Vietnam never became democratic, it would have still been nowhere near as bad as a brutal communist dictatorship. Taiwan was doing quite well under Kai-shek's rule despite not being democratic, and the same can be said with South Korea.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 10:28:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 9:59:10 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:49:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:26:23 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

It wouldn't have been if we didn't pull out of vietnam. The communist government was more brutal than the American war crimes, and South Vietnam would exist today as a relatively prosperous nation had we stayed in.

South Vietnam was not a particularly democratic regime, but neither was South Korea or Taiwan. Both eventually became fully democratic and respectful of human rights, and I imagine that the same would've happened to South Vietnam by now had it survived.

To say that we "shouldn't have withdrawn" isn't as simple as it sounds. Public sentiments were strongly against staying in Vietnam, and I imagine that a person who supported continuing the war would not have been elected President.
A better solution would've been to keep the American news media out of Vietnam and limit the flow of information to the public. The Tet Offensive was a massive failure for the rebels in terms of casualties and the failure to achieve any short-term objectives, but because of the news media it became a victory for them, seeing as how it gave Americans the impression that we were losing the war. This would've allowed for the U.S. to stay in Vietnam a lot longer. Another thing we could've done would be to sponsor an anti-communist insurgency in North Vietnam as a retaliatory measure for the existence of the Viet Cong.

I agree.

None the less, even if South Vietnam never became democratic, it would have still been nowhere near as bad as a brutal communist dictatorship. Taiwan was doing quite well under Kai-shek's rule despite not being democratic, and the same can be said with South Korea.

Economic prosperity is not an argument for dictatorship.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 10:32:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 9:40:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:28:11 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:52:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:41:53 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

Long term success? It's been 15 years and we are now going BACK to war in Iraq. After we pulled out of Vietnam, the country was stabilized within the a year of the fall of Saigon and The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was Removed from power by 1979. While the Khmer Rouge insurgency lasted 10 more years, they were effectively defeated by 1982. So Southeast Asia was stable within 7-12 years.

It's been 13 years, and terror groups such as the ISIL only hold on to a small percentage of the country's land area. The rest of Iraq is on the road to progress.
In Vietnam, the U.S. government invested years and years into saving South Vietnam, only to see it fall to the North.

13 years, sorry
But this is the map of Iraq and Syria, does it look like its under control?
https://upload.wikimedia.org...

Yes, going by this map Iraq does look like it's under control to me. ISIL's territory is shrinking, and it comprises only a small percentage of the land area of Iraq.

And on the road to progress? The human rights situation and economic outlook are abysmal for everywhere but Iraqi Kurdistan.

Iraq's economy is certainly in better shape now than it was under the sanctions, and the present Iraqi government isn't genociding its own people so I don't see how the human rights situation is worse today.

1) They still have Mosul and they control a Huge chunk of Syria. That wouldn't have happened without the 2003 invasion
2) better than under sanctions does not mean it's good. Unemployment is the highest in the region!
3) I never said human rights is worse, but it isn't good and it isn't getting better
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 10:37:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 9:26:23 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

It wouldn't have been if we didn't pull out of vietnam. The communist government was more brutal than the American war crimes, and South Vietnam would exist today as a relatively prosperous nation had we stayed in.

Really?
My Lai? The bombing campaign? Agent Orange???????? The communist regime is bad, but not that bad. At least it doesn't cause birth defects and cancer decades later.
And the Vietnam war was not winnable, the fall of Saigon was inevitable. That was why we pulled out.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 10:44:13 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 9:59:10 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:49:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:26:23 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:26:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The difference between the two is that Iraq was a long-term success, whereas the Vietnam War was ultimately a massive waste of lives and resources.

It wouldn't have been if we didn't pull out of vietnam. The communist government was more brutal than the American war crimes, and South Vietnam would exist today as a relatively prosperous nation had we stayed in.

South Vietnam was not a particularly democratic regime, but neither was South Korea or Taiwan. Both eventually became fully democratic and respectful of human rights, and I imagine that the same would've happened to South Vietnam by now had it survived.

To say that we "shouldn't have withdrawn" isn't as simple as it sounds. Public sentiments were strongly against staying in Vietnam, and I imagine that a person who supported continuing the war would not have been elected President.
A better solution would've been to keep the American news media out of Vietnam and limit the flow of information to the public. The Tet Offensive was a massive failure for the rebels in terms of casualties and the failure to achieve any short-term objectives, but because of the news media it became a victory for them, seeing as how it gave Americans the impression that we were losing the war. This would've allowed for the U.S. to stay in Vietnam a lot longer. Another thing we could've done would be to sponsor an anti-communist insurgency in North Vietnam as a retaliatory measure for the existence of the Viet Cong.

I agree.

None the less, even if South Vietnam never became democratic, it would have still been nowhere near as bad as a brutal communist dictatorship. Taiwan was doing quite well under Kai-shek's rule despite not being democratic, and the same can be said with South Korea.

Clearly you've never heard of the Buddhist Crisis. The ARVN used Chemical Weapons on civilians for Christs sake!