View Single Post
  #11  
Old 07-02-2011, 04:41 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEvilDookie View Post
Why are you comparing us back to World War II? The conflicts in the middle east aren't even close to being comparable with that of WWII. Back then the war provided thousands, maybe even millions of jobs for Americans and any business no matter what was able to sell more of its products for a large profit because of the number of troops that we needed to equip for combat. With the Iraq War, we've done nothing but spend more and more for a huge decrease in the number of troops than WWII, but create no jobs to balance the difference. Because of that, the dollar value has decreased and we kept having to take loans from other countries thus enlarging the national debt even further.

As for focusing on the homeland, you completely missed a major point in my first argument. You make it sound like I said that international relations with foreign countries does more harm than help, which I never said or implied at all. So because of this, I suppose I'll have to repeat myself. I'm all for keeping some troops in middle eastern countries at military bases or something, but simply for moderation. The only effect that intervening more would have would eventually be the complete meltdown of our economy. Spending more doesn't help. It loses money, clearly... So if the "benefits" of intervention can not be seen in the span of this past decade, then how in the world can you say that there remains any benefits at all?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_Wo...the_US_economy
http://www.currencytrading.net/featu...the-us-dollar/
And are you going to argue that American construction contractors haven't benefited from having access to Iraq? That drilling companies haven't made money? That GM hasn't made gobs of money making Humvees and Boeing Predators? Government spending is government spending regardless of what it's spent on, and funding a war probably makes more jobs than reforming health care. WWII is directly relevant. And you have absolutely no evidence to back up any claim that Middle East intervention is the direct cause of the decrease in the value of the dollar. The decrease in the value of the dollar is most directly linked to actions by the federal government, who WANTS the value to decrease as it makes American exports cheaper and thus increases the ability of domestic manufacturers to sell products overseas. At the moment, the government wants the dollar value to decrease and it has taken actions to make it do so, and the only reason it hasn't taken more action is because other countries don't want the US to do so. WWII is a perfect comparison. It was the last time America was so involved in rebuilding a country as it is today.

"Moderation"? What kind of moderation are you imagining here? The Middle East isn't like Europe or East Asia, where keeping a few troops around is enough to keep potential threats at bay due to the possibility of retaliation. There is no middle ground here. Either the West goes all-out, or it does nothing. Anything less that what we've fully invested in Iraq would have almost certainly resulted in utter failure. Limited intervention is only possible when we have allies on the ground that are willing and capable of doing the grunt work by themselves, like in Libya. We have never had that capability in Iraq or Afghanistan; in Iraq our "allies" we have had to make from the ground up, training an entire army and police force to take care of the nation after we've left. What you're suggesting, that we can simply leave a few troops sitting in bases around, is nonsense. That will do absolutely nothing. That is the equivalent of simply leaving. It's actually worse than simply leaving.

Also, did you pay any attention at all, or has the modern need to have benefits immediately so grasped your political viewpoints that you cannot see past a year into the future? After almost a decade of hard work, we are finally beginning to see the results in Iraq; an emerging, functioning democracy that is still on shaky ground but has enormous potential for growth. I have already outlined the benefits of having a stable, pro-American democracy in the Middle East. The impact of what America has done, what it is continuing to do will be felt for the next century, in the same way that the fall of the Iron Curtain can still be felt in the world sphere today. Asking for a quick, easy summary of what has been wrought by the total remaking of a country that is still going on is ridiculous. It's an untenable argument that only works on the uneducated and the uncaring, people that have no consideration of the depth of what is happening in the world. Can you imagine a world today where Japan is a third world country or Germany is in Russia's sphere of influence? No? Then you cannot expect anyone to fully realize the results of what has happened in Iraq. I have already listed many benefits from our intervention, whereas you have yet to say anything beyond "oh noez we are spending money", and as for the future, Iraq could well prove to be the most important thing America has done for the world in this half of the century.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote