View Single Post
  #12  
Old 07-02-2011, 05:25 AM
TheEvilDookie's Avatar
TheEvilDookie Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,983
Send a message via AIM to TheEvilDookie Send a message via MSN to TheEvilDookie Send a message via Skype™ to TheEvilDookie
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
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.
I'm not even in the mood to deal with your ignorance and all I need to say is a few points.

WWII is not directly relevant. 70 years ago =/= today. Maybe it is to grandpa Lou over there, but they're not related. A few reasons the value of the dollar went down are because you've got other countries such as Syria who look at us and say to themselves "What the hell are they trying to do?" and abandon the dollar to switch their form of capital to the Euro.

To continue, you think that the US is the only country intervening in Iraq? Hello, meet my friend the UK. They're still involved and it was British imperialism issues that even lead to Iraqi development in the first place. And as for the number of troops, there are still countless attacks on civilians even with our troops parading through their streets. If shoving our own government up their ass has helped so much, explain why there has been no control of the matter.

And in your last paragraph, YOU said that Iraq is finally onto building a stable government. I agree. When have I not? That's why I think it's okay to bring some troops home because it would only be a wasted effort if we kept men over there if they didn't need to be. And wtf with the tangent about Germany and Japan? Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist organizations are just that... Terrorists. Germany was under fascist dictatorship. Japan was under militaristic rule. Those two are forms of governing; terrorism isn't. They're incomparable.

Oh by the way, I didn't know you could read the future like one of those fortune tellers. Cool "talent".
__________________


^ Anastasia-R ^
Current VPP: Palkia > Level 100: 6987
Reply With Quote