ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

Against simply because of this line, "America a very possible victory is anti-freedom and un-American."

Antioxidant Overdose | 02/25/08

I think the progress is measured when the Iraqi gov't issues measures and laws. I think it's measured when there are less of our men and women dying. Austhus, you're dumb. You go on and on about how we can't measure progress in terms of numbers of us dying, but then you say that we have had too many people die. It's Un-american to not support our people over there, i.e. "trigger happy american security contractors"

Obama's Irish | 02/25/08

I'd say it's un-American not to question what's going on over there and blindly accepting the PR lines from the Administration. I will support our troops the best way I know how: getting them home and out of the line of fire. Also, recognize there's a huge difference between our military forces and the paid security contractors, IE Blackwater.

Austhus | 02/25/08

How much of the success of the Surge can we also attribute to the ceasefire of Moqtada Al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army? It is interesting how much those individuals who believe the Surge is working seem to forget that one of our staunchest opponents in the country, both strategically and ideologically, has temporarily taken himself and his fighters out of the conflict. Swdowning, can you please explain why you are not taking account for this?

Nikolai | 02/25/08

'Trigger happy American contractors' are not 'our' people over there, Irish. They are paid mercenaries whose company has a dangerously large army of their own on American soil. Also, how is wanted the war to end and to bring our troops home un-American? We want our soldiers to stop dying in a needless war, so somehow we're not supporting them? I fail to see the logic in that argument, but what do I expect from someone who uses 'you're dumb' as their main talking point.

base89 | 02/25/08

I guess swdowning's argument relies on the belief that a significant percentage of those who want to end the war only want to do so for the purpose of, "...denying President Bush any success whatsoever." Downing, how have you come to the conclusion that a significant percentage of anti-war people are more concerned with making Bush look bad (like he needs any help) rather than out of concern for our country's diplomatic stature, and the lives of our soldiers? Do you have any basis for that? I think you should provide it if you want any serious consideration for your argument.

IamFry | 02/25/08

Hey, all - an inadvertent TAB posted my second argument prematurely. Could someone give me some advice on how to get what I wanted to say posted correctly? Many thanks - Sam

swdowning | 02/26/08

Just post the rest of your argument down here... I'll politely wait for the rest of your reply until I get the full argument... although the one up there was certainly pushing the word limit.

Austhus | 02/26/08

Thanks. Here's the full text: The issue isn't whether the original mission was ill-conceived. I agree it was. The issue is this: If the surge is indeed working, what should we do? Even according to reports from liberals, the surge is working: Attacks on Americans are down Attacks on civilians are down Baghdad is almost completely secure, and life there is returning to normal Formerly insurgent-controlled provinces will soon be handed over to the Iraqis (Anbar will be the first) Al Qaeda in Iraq has been at least neutralized, if not destroyed Bloodshed has been dramatically reduced These are good things, and if they are true we should not be afraid to acknowledge that truth; neither should we fear continuing to move in a positive direction. Going from "really bad" to "pretty bad" is indeed progress. Austhus, surely you don't require that things go from "really bad" to "great" before you grant that progress has been made, do you? "Deaths per day" is a very relevant factor in assessing improvement, and doesn't prove that "victory is a long way off." It proves that fewer people are dying, and that's a good thing. To acknowledge that the proud, purple-fingered people of Iraq are better off today than they were six months ago is worth even the horrific disgrace of giving them, and us, and in fact our president, a well-deserved victory. Credit where it's due. End. Thanks again. S_

swdowning | 02/26/08

It pains me to take the conservative stance here against an excellent debater, but the objective of the surge was to decrease violence, and that, coupled with said local relations, does in fact seem to have helped. The objective was, quite concretely, to lower violence, and it has in fact done that. Good tactic in a bad war, but it's still a good tactic.

Accidental Democrat | 02/26/08

i do think that is a motive with some people, but not with enough people to really be a factor or worth debate.

Skipper04 | 02/27/08

Thank you for the compliment, AD.. I think. I'm hoping to finish out some of my other debates soon, although a lot of that depends on when the other debater signs on. I'm hoping sooner rather than later.

Austhus | 02/27/08

The objective was to lower violence "for the purpose of political reconciliation" That has not happened So, basically we're there to prevent them from having or continuing a civil war. At this point in this economy , we can't continue for over 100 billion a year to make sure they play nice in the sandbox. We have our own things at home (mortgage crises, recession etc). I am so tired of this war. A mistake doesn't become a great idea because we continue it . If the region or Europe or ANYONE thinks Iran will take over then maybe THEY will get involved and start helping . Until then I say get out and get out soon

SM | 02/27/08

I disagree with this war to start. But I don't want to get out just to embarrass Bush. He needs no help with that. I wish we could "win" but we can't. Only the Iraqi people can decide what kind of country they want. The truth is you can't stop another country from having a civil war. We cannot financially sustain the effort we have now . We just can't. I don't think we've gained on thing as a country from being there. We're not more secure. In a way this whole entaglement in Iraq is exactly what Bin Ladin wanted. His origianl goal for 9/11 was to bankrupt America . I'd say he is winning that one .

SM | 02/27/08

How can the U.S. "win" an occupation of a sovereign nation? What would "victory" look like? Al-Queda is now strong in Iraq, and it didn't exist there before we invaded. Meanwhile, the Saudis keep fostering terrorism, but they're our allies. This whole thing is absurd.

Burro | 02/27/08

Burro - I would define "victory" as turning over to the new Iraqi government (however it finally shakes out) control of a secure Iraq that it can maintain as it continues to define its sense of democracy, removing our forces, establishing mutually beneficial diplomatic and economic relations, and reaping the benefits of a more stable middle-east. The first step in this is securing areas currently controlled by insurgents, and reducing the body count. The surge is doing this, so it's moving in the right direction. Removing all U.S. troops immediately, if it were possible (which it isn't due to time factors), would ensure civil war and increased insurgent control, freedom's rollback, and a less stable middle-east.

swdowning | 03/04/08

I have a feeling that a lot of the votes for Austhus have nothing to do with what he said, and more to do with anti-Bush sentiment. I believe that is a poor way to judge a debate. You guys may disagree with the premise of swdowning's argument, but you should be fair and judge based off of who did a better job of arguing their point. Austhus is a fine debator, but I do believe that swdowning won this debate. I think it is sad that many on this board are unable to differentiate between their opinion and the actual debate.

Consequentialist Libertarian | 03/06/08

Thanks, Consequentialist. I was sort of getting the same impression on this one, although I've generally been very impressed with the ability of those who weigh in to separate personal bias from their commitment to judge an argument on its merits, and to adhere to the original point. I'm not really sure what happened in this case. And yes, Austhus is a powerful debater. I'd like to think that this remains a forum in which one's ability to support the stated premise is more important than the fact that aspects of that premise might be politically abrasive to some on the panel. I'd like to think that those who have so far voted against me would feel free to switch their votes because I have well supported my original tenet, without fear that they are casting a vote for the surge. That's never been my point. My point depends upon a conditional set of circumstances that, if true, will have to be addressed by President Obama, or President Clinton, or President McCain.

swdowning | 03/11/08

Not that I really mind, but why does Austhus have, at the time this is written, seven days to respond? And why did he have six days yesterday? Again, not that it really matters, but who's minding the store?

swdowning | 03/15/08