Staredit Network

Nope, middle east is only number 3 on our lists of where we get our oil from. 1 and 2 are Canada and South America... duh..

We secured the oil fields (I believe our brave navy seal teams did) in order to make sure Saddam didn't set fire to them again. Which was considered a world wide disaster.

And with your logic you are stating that thats the only thing our soldiers are doing in Iraq right now. Have you talked with a soldier from Iraq? I have, and it is very different from what our media shows.


Reasons for invading:

Democratic State in middle east
A middle east ally
Removing a ruthless dictator who murder hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Saddam violated every sanction the UN put on him/his country. (mm sounds familar, hitler?)
Freeing oppressed iraqi people
Helping the minority in Iraq have a say in government
Having the people of Iraq have a say in their government
Creating an Iraq for a role model to other middle eastern countries
A good way to attract terrorists to the country as to divert them from focusing on America.
Good way to kill terrorists who are attracted to Iraq.

I believe this list can go on for quite awhile.


A lot of that money goes into private contracting groups. Which of course means mercs. We have and are paying thousands of Merc. companies to protect important people/places/events that are vital to Iraq. My friend (former army ranger) went to Iraq for a 6 month tour and then a 3 month tour after that. He then joined a company called Black Water, which is now sending him back to Iraq. But his salary is rediculous. He didn't tell me exactly what it was, but its around 200,000 and above.

Which means 1000(mercs, which there is more then just 1,000 in Iraq) x 200,000(salary for each) is about 200 billion dollars. Government pays these companies, which pay their employees. I hope you can see my point further without me having to explain. I am not saying all our money goes into these companies, I am just saying a HUGE CHUNK does.

m.r. bob you could argue that the corporations are evil. I can't stop you. But remember that corporations aren't just an entity, it is made up of huge sums of people. Millions of people work for corporations, and saying that the corporation is evil says that large majority of the employees there are evil. This is just plain out stupid.

Although it should be your responsibility to cite your sources, I'm going to have to take matters into my own hands.
Although this is oil exports, and not oil exports to the US, it still holds relevance because corporations and international entities, and even if the mid east is exporting most of it's oil to other countries, it's still likely exporting its oil to ExonMobil.
Anyhow this is irrelevant due to my update.


What about Haiti, the US government didn't do anything about Haiti (compared to what they did in Iraq). There are tons of countries with atrocities and ruthless dictators, but the US chose to focus on Iraq. These responses are good, but they pertain more to the question of "why intervene?" and not "why Iraq?"

A much better point. It will be difficult for me (and you) to provide evidence for a position here.
My position is that most of the terrorists blowing themselves up in Iraq are doing so out of a desire to end the American occupation. I also believe that by fostering anti Americanism, the Iraq occupation has led to an increased likelihood of terrorist attacks. If Bush has actually managed to prevent terrorist attacks on American (which as a left leaning NYCer I don't believe he has), it has been because of his domestic security policy and the hunting of Al-Qaeda commanders, and not because of the invasion and bombing of Iraq.

ADDITION:
OMG STATS!
Deaths from international terrorism from:
1992-1999 (7 years) = 1807
2000-2005 (5 years) = 4599 (not including 9/11, Israel + Palestine 2004-5 and the 1000 trampled on a bridge in Iraq fleeing from a bomb threat)

Compiled my myself, drawn from data found here

The margin of error might be quite high, but I would have to be making stuff up out of thin air for the difference to not exist. Even with my bias I had no idea that the difference was so huge until I actually complied the data.

It seems like Bush hasn't done that good of a job at preventing terrorism. If that was the purpose of the war in Iraq, then Iraq is a failure.

ADDITION:
The millions who work for corporations don't count, because they're not the ones making the decisions.

so like what exactly does terrorism-related deaths have to do with corperations?

since its mostly the actual terrorists killing the people i dont think those statistics have anything to do with courrupted government and corperations.

TheDaddy0420, my father works for the Navy, my uncle is a Navy Seal trainer, my cousin was in the Navy, more cousins I have over in the East Coast are a part of the army. Their reasons for serving their country isn't about the oil, but the reason for the war is. Even if the oil from the Middle East is only number three, it consists of a lot of oil. Here's some hypothetical statistics:
30% - Canada
30% - South America
25% - Middle East
15% - Other
Now, imagine that 25% of that oil that's necessary for our culture is getting more and more expensive. You would want to control that, wouldn't you? Nobody would want to simply just let go of a rather big supply of oil.

dont we get some from the gulf/texas, alaska and russia?

Corporations are necessities. What are the alternatives?
Okay, so we get rid of corporations... So how are we able to keep the current speed of technological advancement? We supposedly can’t have large groups of people working towards the same goal... So we are basically going no where. Corporations do bad things, but in the long run have generally done good. It provides jobs, fuels the economy, create a large group of people that work together to accomplish the same thing, and many more things. I want you to imagine a world WITHOUT corporations, and not the happy little hippy world you are imagining. Think about REAL life, right now, and then just remove the corporations and think about what will happen.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, the stock market will cease to exist, everybody's money will go down the pooper, and the world will be plunged into chaos and then they will bring back corporations.

Again, your arguement is "what ifs" or "probablys". Where is the cold hard facts saying "We went in for oil, here is the oil we took"



Do those deaths include our brave soldiers killed in action in Iraq and Aphganistan?

When I mean terrorist attacks, I am thinking (at least in this arguement) civilian attacks.

When compared to the whole spectrum, yes there have been many deaths. Its a war what do you expect?

BUt he has been successful. More then 75% of Al Quada is destroyed or captured. I think thats pretty sweet at least.

Also why I haven't cited sources so far is:

My truths are pretty unspecific
If you didn't know what I was talking about then you shouldn't debate with me.
I'm lazy

I will cite my arguements when my knowledge of a subject is beyond yours, and you must see proof in order to make my arguement valid.

But I can already see your a fine debater. Highly respectable.

When politicians or world leaders declare war, it's for mainly 4 major reasons:

A- Moral reasons
B- Economic reasons
C- Security reasons
D- Personal reasons

Iraq was not A, that's for damn sure. And looking at gas prices, it sure as hell isn't B. And after kicking their ass in almost record time, they didn't really live up to C. So that leaves only one left.

i dont think you guys are actually figuring out why exactly why bush made the gas prices high. you might think that we are loosing money from paying so much money for oil. but who do we pay it to? the gas companies. since the gas prices have risen that means that the gas companies get more and more profiet. i think that shell made 58 billion dollars in profiet. so its good for the gas companies(bush has a lot of ties with them) not good for the people.

Bases? proof? none

hate filled opinions

That's a really bad counter argument. The ideas were based more on principle then on evidence, which is often the way we at SEN debate. There is nothing wrong with that.

Hate filled... WTF are you thinking. Is it because of the imperialistic bit? That was just liberal bias, not hateful at all.

ADDITION:
Small companies vs big ones is a pretty classic argument, you really should have something to defend you side of it.

ADDITION:
I'm busy, and I can't answer non absurd arguments at the time. I'll have something prepared tomorrow.

Hate filled as in the bais already set in 2000 with the Bush victory. Anything Bush does right, in most people's opinions, was pure luck or some one did it for him. Any policy he has they hate, no matter what and refuse to change thier minds.

Concrete bais against Bush.

I on the other hand like to give our American government the benefite of the doubt, people in the government are older, wiser, more mature and smarter then a lot of people in our Country. I sway more to their side then a radical college kid's side.

Large v. Small

No opinion, I do not know enough about the subject to properly debate. I would geuss(if anything) social/company darwinism to an extent.

But that doesn't always work out...

Slightly better.
It seems like the following word combinations hit a soft spot for you and remind you of negative stereotypes:
US imperial*
Stupid Bush
Revolution now

A note to the rest of you people:
Avoid using these if they want an intelligent response.

Small v Big
I think that large corporations lead to corruption. Probably the wrong person to cite, but in an Al Franken book, someone said that the family farm was extremely efficient, and that factory farms couldn't make a profit without breaking the law every day. They are able to get away with it because of legislative corruption.

Once I get down to general agreeance over small business, we can go from small business to individuals

ADDITION:
Stop distracting me, must finish essays

Well its been the same points over and over again since last feb. 2005 when I joined this network.

You could say Im getting tired of hearing the arregonce?

Part 1 of 4, Responding to quotes:
Those stats are kind of off on a tangent. TheDaddy0420 was saying that one of the reasons we invaded Iraq was to deter terrorism, the statistics were just to show how bogus that was.

Yes, I did include soldiers killed in Iraq as a result of sucide bombings. However, if all Iraq war related deaths I put in there were taken out (1200 at most), then the point would still stand. Bush gets elected, we invade Iraq, and terrorism goes up.

I can't bring my self to imagine Bush as that much of a monster. No one starts a war for personal reasons unless they are a complete phycopath. You may argue that this is so in Bush's case (an absurd argument), but in a democratic nation such as ours, it takes more then one man to start a war.
If you think that because gas prices are high, then you need to read this comment:
Very good point.


ADDITION:
Part 2 of 4, the alternative:
COMING SOON!

ADDITION:
Part 3 of 4, @Everyone, why we invaded Iraq, trying to refocus as I shift from my starting position:
This is the reason we invaded Iraq, try to refocus the argument around this:
Details to come.

Death toll has already reached 2,000. Is your data old?

Looking closer at the data, I see that I've only counted suicide attacks in Iraq.
I counted 809 deaths from such attacks.

Meaning?

That my stats are definitely right, and that the war in Iraq has caused a huge spike in terrorism.

Again, if those stats include military deaths then I must substract at least 2,000 from your total.

Corporate Entities advance our technology, drive our economy, provide our jobs, etc.
What's the problem?
You want Anarchy, do you? I find it hilarious how anybody could claim themselves and Anarchist. True Anarchy is hell. It's a free for all amongst groups of family and friends. Anarchy has happen in countries when the government has collapsed, but there is no driving force to pick up and start again.

Where do you get your food in Anarchy? All your life you've been buying it from a grocery store, which has been picked clean by looters.

Honestly, I'd like to see you establish anything during Anarachy. If you own a farm, it'll have been stripped clean by starving looters. If you have a stockpile of food, it'll run out. Anarchy is worse than Communism. In Anarchy, survival instincts take over and hospitality is scarcely found.

Is that the world you want to live in? A world of death and violence without foundation?

Corporations must do things that benefit the people to benefit themselves. If a corporation releases a faulty product, it won't sell well and the corporation loses money. Another company will take the opportunity to make a better product and basically dominate that market.
If a corporation releases a good product, people will buy it and the profits will roll in. So another corporation will try to make a better product in the hopes of raising their profits and destroying their competition. What occurs is an improvement in technologies, medicine, and so on and on.
This also increases a person's standard of living. The CEO of the company doesn't design the actual product himself, so he needs to hire the best brains to make the best and most efficient product himself. To make sure that they get this persons help, they offer a higher salary and better benefits.
Corporations don't do anything bad to us.

They exist, won't go away, so get used to it.

No.. you are talking about the world george bush wants.

True amarchy is heaven. It requires everyone to be near perfect in order for it to work though.

ADDITION:

I have solid proof that you are completely wrong on that aspect: The Microsoft corperation.