nb194

For a while now I have been irritated by the lame attempts to debate by the n00b Members. So this Debate is going to be for the more intellectually inclined Members. To get things really rolling we need a very controversial topic, and I think I have one. I'm here to argue that the Iraq War has been a complete and overwhelming success, and that Bush and his ilk are indeed master strategists. Doesn't sound much like me does it? Read on.

It's actually quite simple to see the validity of my conclusion when one makes a few very reasonable assumptions:

1. The US never intended to install a truly democratic government in Iraq.
2. Continued conflict is desirable as it keeps US troops in the region longer.

First, let's address how reasonable these assumptions are. For the first we may look to an extensive number of precedents. In every US intervention since the Korean War (which was actually a UN intervention) where the US line was that it was promoting democracy, how many of those nation-states became true democracies? Hmm.

Vietnam: We supposedly "lost" this one and that's why no democracy came about, but I think we achieved our goals there. If one is trying to establish a prosperous democracy in Southern Vietnam, does one napalm the hell out of only the southern part of Vietnam, destroying great swaths of land and other natural resources for decades? No. If one possesses the greatest military machine on earth, and North Vietnam is one's enemy, why doesn't one just march right up to Hanoi and decapitate the enemy rather than fight meaningless skirmishes in the jungles? In WWII, while fighting Japan, did we go to all their jungle territories and fight them, or did we take just enough islands to hop-skip-and-jump ourselves to Tokyo to force the surrender of all other Japanese territories? That's right: Tokyo. If democracy were truly the goal in Vietnam, the war would have been fought in an entirely different way.

South & Central America: The scope of US intervention in the name of democracy here is massive. From Guatemala to Nicaragua; El Salvador to Chile, the US had its fingers in everything. Did any democracies come about because of US actions? Or did it take decades for democracies to come about only after people overthrew the murderous, fascist regimes supported by the US via the CIA? That's right. Democracy took decades. This can even be found in US high school history textbooks. Take Nicaragua: The US supported the overthrow of the popular Sandanista gov't in favour of a fascist dictatorship. Or El Salvador: US supported an incredibly brutal fascist organization whose mass graves are still being discovered. Again, no democracy.

Thus, every time the US says it's promoting democracy, it is doing the opposite and indeed wants stable regime it can control rather than an independent democracy. Check on assumption number one.

I would hold that assumption two is self-evident, but in case it's not, let me expound. Recent opinion polls show that more than 60% of US citizens believe the Iraq War is a "mistake." However, a greater majority are against pulling US troops out until stability is established in Iraq. Now, let's recall some of Bush's own statements. Specifically that the US is "addicted to oil." It's true. If oil prices spiked much more, the US would be in big trouble. EVERYTHING, from agriculture to transportation is based on petroleum. It's not just that you would have to sell you SUV and get a hybrid, but that there might not be any food to eat if we cannot produce the oil-based fertilizers that make our crops grow. Quite simply: we would be freakinged.

It goes like this: The US needs lots of oil --> The US cannot meet its oil needs domestically --> The US must get its oil from foreign sources.

But where? We tried a coup in Venezuela but it backfired because the people love Chavez. Saudi Arabia is already our annoying one (or is it the other way around?) Western Africa already sends almost all their oil here. The Russians sell theirs to China and Europe. Where in the world is there a large oil supply that is not fully exploited and where we might have an excuse (like promoting democracy!) to somehow take control over that supply? Oh damn. Iraq. (Iran also fits this criteria, but they have a much bigger military.)

So as long is there is conflict in Iraq, public opinion will be in favour of keeping troops there to "finish the job" or "stay the course" or whatever. As long as troops are there, we will have de facto control over what is estimated to be the world's second largest oil supply. Thus, conflict is good. Check on assumption two.

And now, the conclusion follows. There is really no democracy in Iraq, just a puppet government which relies on the US military to exert any kind of control over the country. There is no law and order, and "insurgents" run free instigating violence, which will in turn keep US troops in the region, allowing US control of Iraqi oil. And it is in this sense, that the Iraq War has been an overwhelming success and a great triumph for the Neocons. They've got everything they ever wanted. Debate.

__________________

"People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range,
I used to care, but things have changed..."

Mindfreak

um, do u expect me to read that.....this early in the morning?

princesslady

thats too long and im going to add my 2 cents even if it's not realted. the war is useless. we are only there for war and oil. bnush just wants to prove america is the best country. he can go on with that. america does have the most right but this war is pointles and stupid. he said the war is over but we are still in iraq!!! he says we are there for saddam guy but we didnt capture him yet. and he probally is planning some other stunt like 9/11. i say bring our troops back and stop this meaningless war.

__________________

Born to rule, raised to lead, taught to establish: The African Queen

Heartless_mage

we are not there for oil, if we were then gas wouldn't be 4 dollars a gallon, and by the way princess_lady, no offense, the 9/11 attack was a horrible day in US history. there is no way that could be a stunt. and we cant just bring our troops back now, we have to finish what we started........................................... ............ or people will see America as weak............................ and no other countries respect weak countries, that would cause more wars

__________________

Click here to be Myspace groupies......lol
(\__/)
(='.'=)This is the Bunny Lord. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")signature to help him gain world domination

HolderOfTheDarkChalice

Vietnam: We supposedly "lost" this one and that's why no democracy came about, but I think we achieved our goals there. If one is trying to establish a prosperous democracy in Southern Vietnam, does one napalm the hell out of only the southern part of Vietnam, destroying great swaths of land and other natural resources for decades? No. If one possesses the greatest military machine on earth, and North Vietnam is one's enemy, why doesn't one just march right up to Hanoi and decapitate the enemy rather than fight meaningless skirmishes in the jungles? In WWII, while fighting Japan, did we go to all their jungle territories and fight them, or did we take just enough islands to hop-skip-and-jump ourselves to Tokyo to force the surrender of all other Japanese territories? That's right: Tokyo. If democracy were truly the goal in Vietnam, the war would have been fought in an entirely different way.
my dad was in this war and he thinks he was treaed wrong comming home from the war from everyone .he was upset at the fact they pulled out early but understands the reason whu alot of needless deaths happend and for the government they didnt do anything to help the situation with how everyone
kept saying charlie thats an army term i guess not sure kept there terotory . i tyhink it was poinltess to go over there myself since we didnt gain anything from being there and they still have problems there till this day. and japan has buitl up
a strong hold there now since we left we made a mistake in leaving once we got there i mean with how things are going in iraq didnt mean to chang subject i can see that happning there its gonna be drawn out and lots of our guys are going to die

__________________

nb194

No, but if your not going to read don’t bother to reply either you n00b!

Firstly have you ever heard of quoting? Anyways thanks for going off subject...

__________________

"People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range,
I used to care, but things have changed..."

princesslady

i know you dont mean me!!!!!!!!!!
anyways, how do you think they did 9/11!! they was doing that on purpose!! HUGE STUNT!! and this war is very stupid. we went over there and caused everything!!!!! we destryed iraq. thats why they hate us!!!!we arent a weak country and we are in this war for oil!!1 oh and mage no offense but where do you think this oil is coming from!!! and gas prices have went up over 40 cents since the war started. in a couple of months, the war will make gas prices higher than 4 dollars,(IT'S 3.79 WHERE I AM ANDS THATS HIGH) WE WERE SUPPOSE TO FIND SADDAM GUY AND THEY SAY WE DID BUT LOOK NOW HE IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. THEY SAID HE WAS IN A HOLE AND CAPTURED HIM BUT LOOK HE IS NOT HERE!! this war is stupid and bush need to get out of office. he is just trying to prove hiself as a good prez but it sure as hell aint working. millions of soilders died over this meaningless war and it need to stop. i know what im talking about because oil just raised to 74 bucks a barrell and gas prices are high and we are running out of oil. IRAQ HAS OIL!! this war in conclusion is meaningless and is to make america look strong(which it is) and mean and to make prez bush look good.

__________________

Born to rule, raised to lead, taught to establish: The African Queen

HolderOfTheDarkChalice

i have i forgot to sorry at anyrate the vietnam saga as i call it was w asyed war since we didnt get anything from as i stated before . and with the other wars you mentions we lost alot of repsect with how they were treated by the goverment
like comodeties its like that in evrey war this new war in iraq will not new is going
to cost us more than monet becuase no one thinks ahead its all about kill now apolagise later there are going to be majour repercussions if i spelled that right and there not going to be good repercussions

__________________

karinka

I am not reading that...................................

__________________
Mew!!!

princesslady

i didnt but i addes my 2 cents!!!!!!!!!

__________________

Born to rule, raised to lead, taught to establish: The African Queen

Meji Imaru

Iraq? A success? I think bush did something stupid when he went into thiis war. The war was pointless and because of it we have little ability to purchase gas on a reasonable scale. However that should be saved for another thread

__________________