Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 06-25-2011, 08:34 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default [WAR X] Debate Section


Welcome, one and all, to WAR X Debate! In this arena the only weapons you are allowed are words, the only armor you may bring is fact, and the only rules are civility and proper citation. To win here you need to argue better than anyone else, using any tactics you see fit, and make the most convincing argument, not just for your side but of your side. You aren’t just trying to outdo those arguing against you here, but the people who agree with you as well; only one person from each side will receive a point. In addition to that, two points will be given to whichever team, as a whole, makes the best performance, regardless of what side the individual members are on.

The rules, officially and for posterity, are as such: first, keep all discussion civil. You are more than entitled to attack anything a person says for the benefit of your position, but you may not attack a person’s character. We must all go into this under the assumption that we are all good people seeking what we believe is a positive end. Any form of ad hominem attack against any individual or group of individuals will result in a ban from WAR X Debate for the remainder of the week. Second, cite your sources. If you quote anything, even Wikipedia, be sure to mention what you are quoting. Failing to do so will result in disqualification from individual points, although you will still be counted in judging for the Team points. I won’t apply the same standards to paraphrasing, but it would be appreciated if you did, and will probably help your standing too. And thirdly, do not invoke Godwin’s Law. Any mentions of Nazis or Adolf Hitler will earn a one week ban and and me kicking your butt. If you absolutely need a World War II era supervillain try Benito Mussolini, no one ever mentions him.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-27-2011, 06:07 AM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Topic 1: International intervention in the Middle East. Should it continue, or should the major Western powers withdraw? Specifically, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, although various other countries in the region are valid for discussion.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.

Last edited by Lord Fedora; 06-28-2011 at 12:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-28-2011, 01:54 AM
Sight of the Stars's Avatar
Sight of the Stars Offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Top of Mt. Everest. -shivers- Cold.
Posts: 4,043
Send a message via AIM to Sight of the Stars Send a message via Skype™ to Sight of the Stars
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

WWotS
-The Cullen


I seriously believe that the U.S. should withdraw the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. I understand wanting to help/wanting to get something out of it, but I do believe that focusing on themselves could get better results. For one, we've been shipping supplies out for our military to various places in the Middle East, and I don't think it's helping the United States economy at all. Some of the most expensive of the weapons they are sending over there aren't making it back in salvagable pieces.

Many do not realize how dangerous the whole thing is. In fact, I didn't until the other day, when I saw the movie 'The Hurt Locker' just about three or four days ago. The movie is based in Iraq, centering around a bomb-deactivation squad that is sent to various places in Iraq to defuse bombs that have been planted. They're losing so much over in foreign countries, but what are we gaining? Since the death of bin Laden, their relations with various groups have been falling into the negative zone. I think it is time to withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Libya problem, on the other hand, is something I believe they actually should help with. They're in the process of trying to maintain/obtain a new government (for those who are rebelling), for the better or for the worse. Where would the United States have been if France had not helped them when they were breaking apart from Great Britain? The world's only superpower wouldn't exist, for they would still be under the control of the British, or possibly some other country that tried to take over. If they had lost the Revolutionary War, the world would be a very, very different place. All I can say for Libya is that we should do what we can to help them.
__________________
.previously known as White Wolf of the Snow.
Quote:
[12:38:59 AM] GallantlyGlaceon: ...So how do we do this? XD
[12:39:20 AM] Sight of the Stars: it's nothing really big, just usually a note in your sig that's all like 'paired with soandso'
[12:39:44 AM] Sight of the Stars: just be like "SIGHT OF THE STARZ IS MAH BIZNITCH"
[12:39:57 AM] GallantlyGlaceon: XDDD
[12:39:59 AM] Sight of the Stars: and I'll be like "GALLANTLYGLACEON IS MAH HOE."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-28-2011, 03:08 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

(Octopus Babies)

Should everyone withdraw completely? No. We do, however, need to start focusing less on them and more on the well being of our own country. The intentions of the government to help an support struggling countries in the middle east are just and of good nature, but honestly, we're giving more than what we get out of it.

For the sake of simplicity and ease on my part, I'm going to use statistics mostly about the United States and their involvement because frankly, I don't know what the level of involvement for the UK or any other European country is. National debt is currently above $14 trillion with a rise of nearly $4 billion a day. In the budget for 2010, "the president's base budget of the Department of spending on 'overseas contingency operations' [brought] the sum to $663.8 billion." With those estimates, about half of the yearly rising national debt is equal to the costs of military foreign and affairs. That's outrageous if you ask me. Now clearly, that doesn't mean translate to half of the total debt consisting of foreign affair costs, but it's a huge thorn in the side for the economic advancement of the United States.

So with all that said, here's my answer in a nutshell: Keep a good number of troops in the middle east for moderation purposes, but not enough to make it so that we keep throwing money down the toilet. Money can be saved by cutting spending in foreign affairs as well as other programs. And if our goals are to protect, we don't need to supply as much funding as we currently are. They have governments over there too (except Libya, lol!!), and it's time for the world's superpowers to stop playing the overzealous parent role in order to focus on our own problems.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States
__________________


^ Anastasia-R ^
Current VPP: Palkia > Level 100: 6987
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-28-2011, 07:17 AM
Typhlosion Explosion's Avatar
Typhlosion Explosion Offline
~Blast Burn
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Bark Town
Posts: 5,956
Send a message via AIM to Typhlosion Explosion Send a message via Skype™ to Typhlosion Explosion
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

WAR Team: Ace Trainer's Association
Position: Leader (If that's what you mean XD)

In my opinion, I don't think that we should withdraw ALL troops. If we withdrew completely, a possiblity is that terrorists would take over all the oil fields in the middle east and allow further funding to terrorist attacks on the US. If we just go willy nilly and withdraw, we are putting American lives in danger! Not to mention the fact that we spent $685.1 billion dollars on the military last year, and how much we owe to other countries, such as China. Also, the oil over in the middle east. Infact, we are running out of oil supply here in the United States, so we feed off of the oil from the middle east. Though Iraq isn't all that powerful, they have control over natrual resources, and the economic impact is huge to the rest of the world, and the US also uses the most amount of oil, we would be impacted the most. In fact, I never supported this war and am pretty angry that we are in it in the first place. But now that we are there, if we left now, it would be even a more un-stable enviorment then when we arrived. I feel we should be there buliding schools, creating jobs, and making things stable other than fighting. Although the idea seems un-realistic. On the other hand, if we pulled some troops out, we would be saving lives. Infact, more than 1,000 US soldiers have died there since October 2001, and more and more are dying. But if we keep some troops in, to make sure nothing horid goes on, and to keep things settled, then lives are saved, the middle east is controlled, and we still get oil. The oil they import is buying us time to make cars that do not rely on gas. As I previously stated, oil supply is running low. So, we need to make cars in which do not rely on oil. When the oil runs dry in America and we stop recieving exports of oil from the middle east, then we are in a heap of trouble. No one will be able to drive, therefore, many businesses will have to shut down, because people will not be able to get to them. The only businesses that would stay fluent in customers would be supermarkets, such as Wal-Mart, Food Lion, and others to be un-named. The loss of business would cause loss of money, which leads to starvation, which leads to many many deaths theoretically. So, If we draw out, terrorists will attack US, people will starve, and we will lose billions of dollars. Also, we are giving so much to other countries, and not getting little to nothing back. We have our own problems, like the debt to China! If we stop giving so much to other countries, then we could have a better economy. The economy is horrible in America, many job losses and un-employment rates are at the 10 percentages in the state I reside in. If we withdrew, we would also have a better econoimy, as saving money rather than throwing it all in to millitary funds. They have a government over there, (except for Libya :p) And we basicaly supply it. It's time to get our heads in gear and realizing what's going on.
__________________

Last edited by Typhlosion Explosion; 06-29-2011 at 01:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-28-2011, 08:05 AM
Sight of the Stars's Avatar
Sight of the Stars Offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Top of Mt. Everest. -shivers- Cold.
Posts: 4,043
Send a message via AIM to Sight of the Stars Send a message via Skype™ to Sight of the Stars
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

WWotS
-The Cullen

Maybe not all troops, but as Evil said -- just enough to maintain things. Helping other countries is not at all bad, though, especially in times of need. In fact, read this quote by Bruce Fairchild Barton:

Quote:
There are two seas in Palestine. One is fresh, and fish are in it. Splashes of green adorn its banks. Trees spread their branches over it and stretch out their thirsty roots to sip of its healing waters... The Sea of Galilee receives but does not keep the Jordan. For every drop that flows into it another drop flows out. The giving and receiving go on in equal measure. The other sea is shrewder, hoarding its income jealously. It will not be tempted into any generous impulse. Every drop it gets, it keeps. The Sea of Galilee gives and lives. The other sea gives nothing. It is named The Dead. There are two kinds of people in the world. There are two seas in Palestine.
(source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bruce_Fairchild_Barton)

For example, when the U.S. came in and helped those trapped miners in Chile, their relations with that country improved to the point where they reopened trade with the United States. Like the Sea of Galilee, the U.S. gave and received. It is in these situations where our time and money are well-spent. And yet there are other times where they may never win, and if they do, they may never gain anything from it. Some wars are just a bit futile. It is understandable that the U.S. wanted revenge for 9/11, and went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but look at how long that war has been going on for. Osama bin Laden is dead, now. The majority of troops should remain long enough to try and settle things down, and then come straight back to home, leaving only the ones needed to keep an eye on everything.
__________________
.previously known as White Wolf of the Snow.
Quote:
[12:38:59 AM] GallantlyGlaceon: ...So how do we do this? XD
[12:39:20 AM] Sight of the Stars: it's nothing really big, just usually a note in your sig that's all like 'paired with soandso'
[12:39:44 AM] Sight of the Stars: just be like "SIGHT OF THE STARZ IS MAH BIZNITCH"
[12:39:57 AM] GallantlyGlaceon: XDDD
[12:39:59 AM] Sight of the Stars: and I'll be like "GALLANTLYGLACEON IS MAH HOE."
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-28-2011, 11:04 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Small side note I should have mentioned before, please put your position and team name at the top of your first post on the subject.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-28-2011, 11:41 PM
Simmi's Avatar
Simmi Offline
PE2K Website Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,239
Send a message via AIM to Simmi Send a message via MSN to Simmi
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

I think it depends on the reason for the intervention, in my honest opinion the intervention in Libya is fully justified and Gaddafi's arrest order should have been ordered couple of months ago, probably the same week the UN started their interfering, in the mean time these past months so many innocent people have died, so why did they wait all this time, the arrest order was just ordered this week and if he had been captured when this started so many people's life's would have been sparred and even more people wouldn't have to flee the country to neighboring countries, I think in this case intervention was the only option seeing Gaddafi was having protesters killed, they were protesting him breaking the rules, since it wasn't to his pleasing or in his favor he's just gonna kill them like it doesn't matter, the man is a monster and he deserves everything coming to him, also him losing family members, I can say that I just don't give a flying fudges/care since he has killed and torn apart so many families that I think it's sweet irony that he got to taste what he's forcing upon people daily.

Libya is just one of a kind, there have been news reports about neighboring countries in Africa standing up to strict dictators demanding freedom and in my opinion these people should be helped out, once everyone is free and happy chance are that society will start to function properly and maybe come a little bit close to the future both in behavior, manner, ways and culture also in technology. I think granting the people in the middle east who want it freedom is the best thing that can be done, seeing if those people start being happy they will maybe stop seeing flaws in other countries being happy, like take a look at 9/11, it was caused by unhappy terrorist from these parts of the world, but if they had been raised a different way, in a happier society, and not taught to be jealous and spiteful of what they don't have and not to take that anger and put it into actions, like bombing stuff up, then maybe this whole thing could have been avoided.

But then again the war on Iraq was a act of revenge and the purpose was just plain revenge not to help a group out, just to capture criminals/terrorists. With that said the war has brought some good towards Iraq.

When USA interfered in WW2 they camped down in Iceland and ripped the people of Iceland from poverty and poor living conditions into the future, in my opinion having the soldiers was one of the best thing that happened to Iceland in it's history, the soldiers came and helped people build better houses and helped them make better living condition and gave people jobs, people had been unemployed but when the Americans came unemployment was somewhat erased for a while. Maybe having US/UN soldiers in the Eastern part of the world will have the same effect it had for Iceland, helping it grow and bringing the future to them, many people still lived in mud/grass/hey houses before the American came, the American helped the people build proper decent houses.

So seeing how having an outside force come into Iceland and help out, showing them what they can do to improve had such a enormous effect on Iceland I believe that intervention of outside countries into the Eastern territories might influence the Easterners and have similar effects as the Americans had for Iceland and maybe for once the Eastern countries could be happy and all this need for war would be over with.

So I think the Western powers should not withdraw, and should push on harder to try to spread as much positive influence around while they are in the Middle East into the surrounding environment. And I think the Western powers should withdraw only when Gaddafi and his troops have been completely immobilized.

War Team:
The Armada

Last edited by Simmi; 06-28-2011 at 11:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-29-2011, 05:00 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Armada
Pro-Intervention

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Wolf of the Snow View Post
WWotS
-The Cullen


I seriously believe that the U.S. should withdraw the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. I understand wanting to help/wanting to get something out of it, but I do believe that focusing on themselves could get better results. For one, we've been shipping supplies out for our military to various places in the Middle East, and I don't think it's helping the United States economy at all. Some of the most expensive of the weapons they are sending over there aren't making it back in salvagable pieces.

Many do not realize how dangerous the whole thing is. In fact, I didn't until the other day, when I saw the movie 'The Hurt Locker' just about three or four days ago. The movie is based in Iraq, centering around a bomb-deactivation squad that is sent to various places in Iraq to defuse bombs that have been planted. They're losing so much over in foreign countries, but what are we gaining? Since the death of bin Laden, their relations with various groups have been falling into the negative zone. I think it is time to withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Libya problem, on the other hand, is something I believe they actually should help with. They're in the process of trying to maintain/obtain a new government (for those who are rebelling), for the better or for the worse. Where would the United States have been if France had not helped them when they were breaking apart from Great Britain? The world's only superpower wouldn't exist, for they would still be under the control of the British, or possibly some other country that tried to take over. If they had lost the Revolutionary War, the world would be a very, very different place. All I can say for Libya is that we should do what we can to help them.
The value of having a potentially stable democracy and key ally in Iraq cannot easily measured in terms of dollars or even lives. The actions of the US in the past decade will shape the region for decades to come, and as of now it is yet impossible to tell just how the situation will turn out. If Iraq does emerge with a stable government, it will act as a stabilizing force in the region whereas it was previously a destabilizing one, helping to preserve peace in the Middle East as well as serving US interests, and in which case the billions that have been spent there will be worth every single penny. As a result, the question of "What are we gaining?" is, in some respects, a nonsensical one, as there is equal potential for massive gain and massive loss. From a historical perspective, the Iraq War could be compared to the aftermath of WWII. We stood to gain little immediately by pouring billions into rebuilding Germany, Japan, and Italy, but half a century later those billions have paid for themselves many times over in the creation of two of the largest economies in the world. Today, the Marshall Plan is considered by historians to be one of the most successful US foreign policies in the world.

In terms of more immediate benefits, Iraq has provided the US with two major things: the first is experience, the second is oil. In the case of the former, the Iraq war was a lesson to all the people of the United States, high-minded and idealistic as we often are, that the US's power is not absolute. After the fall of the Soviet Union, there had been a general feeling among politicians and the general populace of American exceptionalism; while that is certainly still present today, it certainly has been tempered by the hardships endured in the Middle East. Iraq was a reality check for this generation of Americans, something that will shape our policies into a more realistic and controlled form for years to come, and if nothing else, I believe that that alone is worth it.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde...worth_the.html

Second, fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has provided our military with reams of experience. If nothing else, we learned how to do counterterrorism right, and our experience can be translated into fields of battle across the world and into the future. This is also something that cannot be easily quantified into a sum of dollars. As peace in the Middle East is unlikely in the near future, this experience will likely see quite a bit of use.

Third, onto oil. There's no point in hiding the fact that the West's primary interest in the Middle East is oil. When GWB decided to oust Saddam, there is little doubt that the fact that Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserve factored into his decision. Iraq's oil production is expected to increase manyfold in the coming decades as the change in governments allows foreign contractors into the country. Of these, the majority of drilling contracts are going to American companies, due in large part to our technological superiority when it comes to drilling for oil. Tens, even hundreds of billions of dollars in contracts are going to US companies. So while Iraqi oil is unlikely to be able to pay for the cost of the war, it certainly doesn't hurt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/bu...ewanted=1&_r=1

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEvilDookie View Post
For the sake of simplicity and ease on my part, I'm going to use statistics mostly about the United States and their involvement because frankly, I don't know what the level of involvement for the UK or any other European country is. National debt is currently above $14 trillion with a rise of nearly $4 billion a day. In the budget for 2010, "the president's base budget of the Department of spending on 'overseas contingency operations' [brought] the sum to $663.8 billion." With those estimates, about half of the yearly rising national debt is equal to the costs of military foreign and affairs. That's outrageous if you ask me. Now clearly, that doesn't mean translate to half of the total debt consisting of foreign affair costs, but it's a huge thorn in the side for the economic advancement of the United States.

So with all that said, here's my answer in a nutshell: Keep a good number of troops in the middle east for moderation purposes, but not enough to make it so that we keep throwing money down the toilet. Money can be saved by cutting spending in foreign affairs as well as other programs. And if our goals are to protect, we don't need to supply as much funding as we currently are. They have governments over there too (except Libya, lol!!), and it's time for the world's superpowers to stop playing the overzealous parent role in order to focus on our own problems.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States
Once again, the benefits of international intervention cannot be seen in the span of a decade. Going back to the Marshall Plan, US aid to post-war Germany and Japan was the direct cause of them becoming the (until recently) second and third largest economies in the world. But in the decade after WWII, people were saying much the same about the aid. It's also interesting to note that during WWII, the US's federal debt was also larger than its GDP, yet the US embarked on funding the reconstruction of two much larger countries than Iraq anyways. Although I do not wish to bring the discussion off-track, the fact that the root cause of modern federal debt lies within our systems at home, and not the military. Reducing the defense budget is only attacking the symptoms of the disease, but it won't change much. Money saved from the military is only going to be spent elsewhere rather than actually saved.

As for the "let's focus on our own problems" argument, if this were a valid theory then no country would ever send anyone out of its borders, ever. First, let me point out that there is no country at any point in history that has ever had no problems. If you wanted to wait until you had no problems to deal with the international community, then you would be waiting forever. Second, the fact is that other people's problems are our problems. Like it or not, there is no corner of the world today in which instability and war does not affect us back home. Terrorism, dictators, revolutions, and wars in Asia affect us politically and economically here in the US. To not play the "overzealous parent" will own exacerbate our "own problems".
__________________

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."

Last edited by Lusankya; 06-29-2011 at 05:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-02-2011, 03:19 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
Once again, the benefits of international intervention cannot be seen in the span of a decade. Going back to the Marshall Plan, US aid to post-war Germany and Japan was the direct cause of them becoming the (until recently) second and third largest economies in the world. But in the decade after WWII, people were saying much the same about the aid. It's also interesting to note that during WWII, the US's federal debt was also larger than its GDP, yet the US embarked on funding the reconstruction of two much larger countries than Iraq anyways. Although I do not wish to bring the discussion off-track, the fact that the root cause of modern federal debt lies within our systems at home, and not the military. Reducing the defense budget is only attacking the symptoms of the disease, but it won't change much. Money saved from the military is only going to be spent elsewhere rather than actually saved.

As for the "let's focus on our own problems" argument, if this were a valid theory then no country would ever send anyone out of its borders, ever. First, let me point out that there is no country at any point in history that has ever had no problems. If you wanted to wait until you had no problems to deal with the international community, then you would be waiting forever. Second, the fact is that other people's problems are our problems. Like it or not, there is no corner of the world today in which instability and war does not affect us back home. Terrorism, dictators, revolutions, and wars in Asia affect us politically and economically here in the US. To not play the "overzealous parent" will own exacerbate our "own problems".
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/
__________________


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

Last edited by TheEvilDookie; 07-02-2011 at 03:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #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
  #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
  #13  
Old 07-02-2011, 01:23 PM
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
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.
Perhaps not to someone with no understanding of history. But if you cannot learn the lessons of the past, then you have no hope for the future.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...008297758.html

Quote:
The Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee meets again today, and we suppose congratulations of a sort are in order. Last September, the committee declared that it wanted prices to rise more rapidly, and on that score it has succeeded. The question now is whether the Fed's success in promoting inflation
Apparently you also can't learn the lessons of current news either, considering the fact that that inflation has been ENCOURAGED by the Federal Reserve. In the light of this fact your accusation of ignorance is laughable.

Quote:
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.
Iraq always has been, and always will be, an American matter. The UK's irrelevant. They could have pulled out every single soldier years ago. Heck, they could have never had sent any soldiers in the first place. Their contribution was tiny compared to the American one, and it was mostly for political posturing. Also, that argument reeks of Nirvana Fallacy. Putting troops into a war zone doesn't automatically make it peaceful. But if there have been any less attacks on civilians because of our troops (which is practically guaranteed if you follow the history of sectarian violence in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiites), it's been worth it.

Quote:
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.
That point flew waaaay over your head boy. The government is irrelevant. The fact that we're rebuilding a destroyed country is. The fact that, by rebuilding two countries it destroyed in war, America also built two of the world's largest economies. America didn't have to do the Marshall Plan. It didn't have to pour billions into rebuilding Germany and Japan. And if it hadn't, both those countries would have more in common with nations like Georgia or Malaysia than they do with themselves today. That's the difference between an Iraq from which we withdrew way too early and the possible Iraq that may exist now.

Quote:
Oh by the way, I didn't know you could read the future like one of those fortune tellers. Cool "talent".
Oh, I didn't know you couldn't ponder the significance of a political event such as restructuring one of the axis of power within a region and thought that the ramifications wouldn't span past a decade.
__________________

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
  #14  
Old 07-02-2011, 07:27 PM
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
Perhaps not to someone with no understanding of history. But if you cannot learn the lessons of the past, then you have no hope for the future.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...008297758.html
As I sit here and shake my head, you continue to disregard the major differences between now and 70 years ago. The scales of both the wars and the economy are separated by a huge range. They had millions of jobs created back then compared to our thousands. They had a depression compared to our recession. This isn't history repeating itself, it's only like a child of the past.

Quote:
Apparently you also can't learn the lessons of current news either, considering the fact that that inflation has been ENCOURAGED by the Federal Reserve. In the light of this fact your accusation of ignorance is laughable.
Yeah go take your hypocrisy elsewhere. The federal reserve can easily be deemed as corrupt. Their interests lie within themselves, and not the good of the country. In simpler terms it's as if the fed is a private corporation.

Quote:
Iraq always has been, and always will be, an American matter. The UK's irrelevant. They could have pulled out every single soldier years ago. Heck, they could have never had sent any soldiers in the first place. Their contribution was tiny compared to the American one, and it was mostly for political posturing. Also, that argument reeks of Nirvana Fallacy. Putting troops into a war zone doesn't automatically make it peaceful. But if there have been any less attacks on civilians because of our troops (which is practically guaranteed if you follow the history of sectarian violence in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiites), it's been worth it.
You can't just ay that a major player is irrelevant. That's like saying the cheese on a burger is irrelevant because the meat is bigger. The only difference between the UK and the US is that for most of the time, it WAS the UK's problem and they were doing most of the acting, but when America had to go all "Herp derp I'mma super hero", Britain was like "Yeah you can be the leader now, you idiot lol!!" And again, my face when you STILL can't read that I said we should keep SOME troops there -> :||||||||||||

Quote:
That point flew waaaay over your head boy. The government is irrelevant. The fact that we're rebuilding a destroyed country is. The fact that, by rebuilding two countries it destroyed in war, America also built two of the world's largest economies. America didn't have to do the Marshall Plan. It didn't have to pour billions into rebuilding Germany and Japan. And if it hadn't, both those countries would have more in common with nations like Georgia or Malaysia than they do with themselves today. That's the difference between an Iraq from which we withdrew way too early and the possible Iraq that may exist now.
What? XDD The government is totally relevant, my child! That was part of the initial question... "International intervention in the Middle East. Should it continue, or should the major Western powers withdraw?" Major western powers implies the governments and their involvement. Btw, you can't just keep throwing around terms such as the Marshall Plan and the Axis powers without making relevant points with them. To reiterate, Germany and Japan were entire nations that we destroyed the homeland of with tanks, warships, and (for Japan) atomic bombs. We aren't exactly doing the same thing in the middle east because the major threats that we face are the TERRORIST organizations. Terrorist organization =/= Government. Got it yet?

Quote:
Oh, I didn't know you couldn't ponder the significance of a political event such as restructuring one of the axis of power within a region and thought that the ramifications wouldn't span past a decade.
Why the hell do you keep bringing up the Axis powers? The axis powers were a completely different opponent unlike anything the world has ever seen even up to today (except maybe the Central powers in WWI).
__________________


^ Anastasia-R ^
Current VPP: Palkia > Level 100: 6987
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-03-2011, 08:48 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Alright guys, round over. The scores are as follows:

For: Lusankya of the Armada
Against: TheEvilDookie of Octopus Babies
Team Effort: Goes to Armada, based on Lusankya's shared domination of the debate and Simmi's smaller, but very well supported contribution.

And now for something completely different:

Topic 2: The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that, as an artistic medium, the sale of violent video games to minors cannot be legally banned. Discuss such laws-not from a legal or Constitutional perspective, but from a global one-and whether it is a good idea or not to ban the sale of certain kinds of games to certain groups of individuals.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.

Last edited by Lord Fedora; 07-03-2011 at 08:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com