Debate: Congressional Authority

AmerikazMost

Well-Known Member
#1
Here's one that didn't get voted into our schedule for Di-Phi, but I feel like it incites provocative discourse nonetheless. It delves into both current events and the authority of the body in question.

The format for debate in my organization calls for two speakers from both sides, the affirmative and the negative, to put forth their arguments. After the scheduled speakers are done, anyone from the floor can speak.

With that being said, I'm not going to put forth an argument for or against the resolution, but I will participate in the discussion if y'all take it upon yourselves to get one going.




Resolved: The United States Congress should intervene and halt military involvement in Iraq.
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#2
stopping military involvement in iraq is a pretty bad idea. you have turkey read to invade and fuck up the kurds. evidence of iran, china, syria, saudi arabia, and egypt involvement in some way shape or form where it is nationals or military troops to go and help fight against our forces, the iraqi forces, or which ever religious side they don't like, and supplying arms to certain sides (hmmm that doesn't really make it a civil war if troops and citizens of other countries are pretending to be as iraqis). if we leave shit will get much worse than it has been in recent years. we could be right back in there just as fast as we left

now if congress, well most of congress, would actually listen to the generals and commanders on the ground instead of playing childish games maybe more could get accomplished. instead we have members of congress trying to wave the white flag before they even hear the full reports of the troop surge or even before it gets to full swing. even the media that has been against the war and reported nothing but negative stories coming out of there have even admitted that things are starting to turn and that there are signs of progress. a report just a month ago said that iraqi civilian deaths are down 30%, that is a pretty good amount. so there are signs of progress.

personally i wish congress would actually listen to the generals and military leaders in iraq, some of which have phd's and know what they are talking about, instead of playing political games for power, because those games are not doing the country, the troops over there fighting and trying to help the iraqi's, and anyone in general any good at all. after all most of congress that are playing these games have no military experience what so ever and act like they know what is best for the troops, iraq, and the american people. i think they are all a bunch of children...at least they act like it.
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#3
wow, look what hit the wires today. this just backs up my point.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/2...nexclusive_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop
WASHINGTON — U.S. troops could withdraw from Iraq within months, but if Iraq's government remains politically deadlocked, it probably would collapse and the nation would descend into chaos, a war game organized by the U.S. Army concluded earlier this month.

The war gamers, following a scenario created by their Army hosts, determined that U.S. troops would secure the exit route to Kuwait through largely Shiite Muslim southern Iraq and face little fighting as they drove their equipment out. Any attacks, the panel judged, would be "harassment attacks," likely by a few Sunni members of al Qaida in Iraq who wanted to attack American troops one last time.

"Why would they stop us? They have been telling us to leave," said one participant who requested anonymity to speak freely about the war game.

Once U.S. troops left, however, the chaos in Iraq would escalate. Shiite militias would drive Baghdad's Sunni population into Iraq's western Anbar province, which is almost exclusively Sunni, the war gamers concluded. There would be a power struggle within Anbar among tribes backed by outside Sunni Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Syria .

Rival Shiite factions would fight one another to control much of the rest of the country, and Iran presumably would back one side, although the gamers couldn't assess how overt Iranian interference would be. Turkey would consider entering Iraq from the north to thwart the Kurds, who desire independence and claim some of Turkey as part of their homeland.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's government would be unable to control the country. Indeed, the gamers concluded, his government could collapse unless Iran threw its support behind it.

"The mess we would leave behind would be awful," the participant said. "The ethnic cleansing is happening now. Once we're gone, absent a political solution that would allow the Iraqi Army to go into action, all of that will be accelerated."

The Army staged the one-day exercise earlier this month at a Hilton hotel in suburban Springfield, Va ., and invited 30 Iraq experts, among them serving and retired officers and Iraqi exiles.

The organizers picked April 2008 as a starting point— the month after which U.S. commanders have said they can't maintain the surge of additional U.S. forces and still give troops a year off between 15-month deployments— and January 2009 as the end. They played the roles of the Sunnis, the Shiites, the insurgents, the militias, the military generals and the Iraqi government.

The game was one of several simulations of what Iraq might look like in the 2009 time frame if U.S. troops leave, said retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson , who participated in the Springfield exercise and several previous such games. But he said the Army hasn't yet staged an exercise premised on an abrupt withdrawal.

That the military war games are focusing on the potential chaos in Iraq , rather than an abrupt troop withdrawal, offers some insight into how the Pentagon is planning for the next stage of the war, several of the participants told McClatchy Newspapers .

"It will be as easy to get out as it was to get in," said one senior defense official, who declined to speak on the record about possible future operations. He said he believes that U.S. forces could get out of Iraq in as little as six months.

But the military insists that there's no withdrawal plan at this time.

"Tell us the policy, and we will do it," one senior Pentagon official said.

Critics said the military is underestimating how hard it'll be to get out of Iraq . They point to Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon , which boosted the fortunes of the militant Shiite Islamic group Hezbollah , and the Soviet Union's hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan , which cost more than 500 Soviet troops their lives.

Rep. Joe Sestak , D-Pa., a retired Navy vice admiral who was director of defense policy for the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, said he believes that drawing down or withdrawing troops could be one of the most dangerous periods of the Iraq war.

"The military will be vulnerable . . . . You are going to go out in a combat situation," Sestak said. "I think we can do greater damage if we don't have a firm grasp on the military implications."

U.S. troops are likely to leave an Iraq that's still embroiled in fierce sectarian violence, he said. "How quickly can the military move its 160,000 troops out? What about the 100,000-plus contractors? How many of the military's 45,000 Humvees should be left behind for the Iraqi Army? Which of 64 military bases should be closed? How does the military protect its main route out of Iraq toward Kuwait ?"

Sestak estimates that it would take at long as two years to withdraw.

America's future in Iraq will be at center stage next month, when Gen. David Petraeus , the top U.S. military commander in Iraq , and Ryan Crocker , the U.S. envoy there, give an assessment and recommendation to Congress on Iraq's security and political situation.

The war gamers' only issue was getting out and at what cost.

By the end of the game, the players decided that the exercise had "captured how bad it would be," said the participant who declined to be identified.

"I don't worry about how we will get out of Iraq ," Anderson concluded about the latest war game. "I am worried about the Iraqis we will kill on the way out
 

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#4
Well, what's this debate really about? Is it about, staying or leaving Iraq, or is it about Congressional intervention?

Staying or leaving would be a better debate, who cares about Congress. Let them give themselves a raise and then go on vacation as usual.
 

AmerikazMost

Well-Known Member
#5
Well, what's this debate really about? Is it about, staying or leaving Iraq, or is it about Congressional intervention?

Staying or leaving would be a better debate, who cares about Congress. Let them give themselves a raise and then go on vacation as usual.
It's about both, essentially. To begin with, should Congress do what it can to get us out of Iraq? And regardless, do/should they even have the power to?

It's always about the resolution itself and how it's worded. Like the law :p. There can, and should, be multiple issues to tackle within one resolution.
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#7
what about the lives of the iraqis that will be slaughtered if we pull out? are they not important?

what about future generations? is securing the nation in the short run not better in the long run? if we pull out now, will that not make it worse there in the long run for many generations to come?

what about american lives? those soldiers knew what they were getting into when they signed up. the military doesn't accept complete idiots, despite popular belief. nobody who joins the military and completes BT goes off to war thinking "hey, this is going to be like paintball, i'm going to come out of this alive". they know they have a chance of dying. they know there are sacrafices they must make, in many shapes and forms, which is what comes with joining the military and serving ones country.

you ask what about american lives? don't let them die in vain, thats what. if congress and the iraqi govt would take the cuffs off and let them do their job, then they wont.
 
#8
here's my question. why is it America's job to keep Iraqis safe? they did what they wanted to do, get Saddam out of power and bring in democracy. it shouldn't be the U.S. military's job to keep Iraq safe, at the expense of American lives. they shouldn't have even been there in the first place, but that's a totally different argument. they should set a date to bring the troops home as soon as they can.

i mean with the logic you bring Puff, they might as well stay in Iraq forever, because it doesn't matter if it's tomorrow or 10 years from now, if these outside forces are waiting for the US to leave so they can move in they will wait as long as is necessary. so no matter when they leave, it will happen regardless. i say, they did what they wanted to do, leave as soon as possible and let the chips fall where they may. America's top priority should be protecting American lives, not Iraqis.
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#10
here's my question. why is it America's job to keep Iraqis safe? they did what they wanted to do, get Saddam out of power and bring in democracy. it shouldn't be the U.S. military's job to keep Iraq safe, at the expense of American lives. they shouldn't have even been there in the first place, but that's a totally different argument. they should set a date to bring the troops home as soon as they can.

i mean with the logic you bring Puff, they might as well stay in Iraq forever, because it doesn't matter if it's tomorrow or 10 years from now, if these outside forces are waiting for the US to move in they will wait as long as is necessary. so no matter when they leave, it will happen regardless. i say, they did what they wanted to do, leave as soon as possible and let the chips fall where they may. America's top priority should be protecting American lives, not Iraqis.
well, then who is going to do the job? the UN? the US wouldn't have to if the Iraqi's would step up and do the job themselves

there are US bases all over the world that have been there for decades. the US is going to have a presence in Iraq until we are old men.

the guardian reported today that Iran has been shelling the Kurds.
 
#11
Iraq is anything but a democracy.
true i suppose, but they planted the seeds of democracy. they shouldn't need America to hold their hand through the entire process and all the growing pains. hell, the Iraq elections were more successful than the American elections, so what does that say about America? i mean, should a country that gets less than 30% turnout in their own elections be trying to spread their brand of democracy to other countries? Iraq will eventually have to learn to stand on their own, and the US can't, and shouldn't, always be there to back them up, or else they will always be there.
 
#12
Besides look at the big picture, We here in America still don't have Democracy down... we have a 2 party systems (it shouldn't be that way, that is not a democracy, we still have hate... there is a lot of shit that is still wrong here). And you are trying to tell me we are going to bring Democracy to Iraq in months, maybe a couple of years, no no my friend it's not going to happen EVER. America is still a work in progress we have been working on this for roughly 237 years... NO way in hell do i want the US to be over there for that long. To be over there w/o a declaration of war, (illegal war), no f'n way, they are over there for special interests, and the soldiers should just come home.... I think it's bullshit when these private companies get BILLION dollar contracts to rebuild this nation and yet again our soldiers get paid pennies on the dollar... fuck that lets just bring them all back.

If the issue is how are other countries going to treat iraq after we leave... I doubt any1 is going to attack Iraq, the only reason it has seen itself full of "insurgents" is because the US is in there, easier target. Pulling out won't bring them here either so don't try and pull that argument cuz if you look at it in an intellectual way, if you lock your house you can do practically w/e u want to it but if some1 wants to get in they will... Same as with our country, it's impossible to keep every1 out. So i kinda skewed from the point but my point is lets get the hell out of there and out of everywhere else in the world for that matter we have no reason to be there... Vietnam, we left, we are trading buddies.... hmmm like Ron Paul said, "the same people who are telling us that Iraq will be in chaos if we leave are the same people who are saying that Iraq was going to be a cake-walk when we went it". I can't believe you guys want to feel guilty for those lives that will be lost if they do have a revolution... you know why it's called a revolution...

jesus, i mean look at the bloody battles in Somalia, why isn't the US doing anything it's because we have no corporate interests there, so we are not sticking our heads in there we will let them fight it out... same will be said for Iraq.... Cuz you say Egypt and other countries will invade... if the people don't want them there they will not last... look at the US and their casualties, trust me if it isn't meant for them to be there they won't.... if you know what i'm saying they will be attacked like the US was and they will be FORCED to get the fuck out of there, cuz #1 got spanked so so will every1 else..... Lets pull out and not create anymore problems...is my opinion...
 
#13
there is more i can say to back up my claims but i feel i kinda skewed a lot and didn't make my last post as organized as i wanted, but i hope you get the point nonetheless.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson

We have a big government now!

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson

Most Dems. want national healthcare?! hello open your eyes!

Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it.
-Malcom X

They are taking our freedoms away, because of terrorism, bullshit! Lets vote RP and restore the constitution and take back our freedoms!
 
#14
there is more i can say to back up my claims but i feel i kinda skewed a lot and didn't make my last post as organized as i wanted, but i hope you get the point nonetheless.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson

We have a big government now!

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson

Most Dems. want national healthcare?! hello open your eyes!

Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it.
-Malcom X


They are taking our freedoms away, because of terrorism, bullshit! Lets vote RP and restore the constitution and take back our freedoms!
I like that quote. Though I don't really agree with the rest of your post. lol
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top