(In)adequate Coalition forces in Iraq

[Dirty Adan]

I propose a debate between myself and any interested member on whether or not there was, is and/or will be sufficient force available to the Coalition and the interim Iraqi government to secure the prospects of the post-war economic and political reconstruction.

[Zadok001]

I'm on your ignore list, and to be perfectly honest, I'd rather not engage in a debate with someone who has never (to my knowledge) adequately defended any of his claims on this website.

That said, I do know this debate, should it occur, will be rather vitrolic, and I have a suggestion. I volunteer to moderate. I recommend you select someone else willing, and the two of us will assist in drafting mutually acceptable rules.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I volunteer to moderate. I recommend you select someone else willing, and the two of us will assist in drafting mutually acceptable rules.

I'm afraid that job's already taken. :cool: StrictSeparationist and I carry the official FD mod cattle prod.

- NS, FD Moderator

[Dirty Adan]

Edit: Never mind about Zadok.

I will wait ten days for someone to accept the challenge. At this point I don't care who; it's for the best to get this out of the way once and for all--one way or the other.

If this exchange does devolve into vitriolic personal attacks, it will be plain to all that my opponent is the only one sinking to such a level.

[Clutch]

"There was, is and/or will be sufficient force available to the Coalition and the interim Iraqi government to secure the prospects of the post-war economic and political reconstruction"?

So you're willing to defend, inter alia, that at some future point there will be sufficient force available to (whether or not committed by?) "the Coalition" to secure -- not reconstruction but -- the prospect of post-war reconstruction?

Your opponent, then, is to present evidence that at no future time will there be sufficient force available to secure something counting as the very prospect of reconstruction?

The tilted pitch plus Complex Question do not bespeak a serious interest in actual debate.

[Zadok001]

Cool, Nightshade. :) I'll just carry my standard battery of sarcasm, in that case.

[Dirty Adan]

Temporarily removing ignore on Clutch.

Your opponent, then, is to present evidence that at no future time will there be sufficient force available to secure something counting as the very prospect of reconstruction?

I suppose you missed the "and/or." I and my opponent can chose to defend or attack the sufficiency of force in any tense. I myself intend to argue that the Coalition committed force at the outset, throughout and is able to continue doing so and will in the future. My opponent can take issue with any combination of those assertions.

[Nice Squirrel]

Aden, How could you know Clutch posted if he was on Ignore?

No difference.

I propose a debate between myself and any interested member on whether or not there was, is and/or will be sufficient force available to the Coalition and the interim Iraqi government to secure the prospects of the post-war economic and political reconstruction.

I would consider accepting if you were known to thoughtfully support your accusations, but since this is not the case, I will refrain.

[Clutch]

I suppose you missed the "and/or."

Of course not. You might think so, however, if you missed (or could not understand) "inter alia".

Notice moreover that you evaded a key problem; the hopeless imprecision arises from more than simply the tense, as I pointed out. What could it mean for Iraq to lack even the prospect of reconstruction -- past, present or future?

[Dirty Adan]

Aden, How could you know Clutch posted if he was on Ignore?

I'm giving everyone on the ignore list one reprieve in this thread in order to seek out a challenger.

I would consider accepting if you were known to thoughtfully support your accusations, but since this is not the case, I will refrain.

Your opinion, your choice, your chance. Gone.

Oh, and Clutch, you wasted yours.

[Clutch]

Oh, and Clutch, you wasted yours.

Fortunately, demonstrating the inelegance, confusion, and unfairness of your proposed resolution in no way requires your liking the experience.

Losing the opportunity to correct your errors at greater length is not a serious hardship, moreover.

[Spenser]

I propose a debate between myself and any interested member on whether or not there was, is and/or will be sufficient force available to the Coalition and the interim Iraqi government to secure the prospects of the post-war economic and political reconstruction.

How exactly does one win this debate? What measure is there to put this up against to judge whether or not there is a sufficient force. As of now if sufficient force meant that there would be no insurgency at all you'd have already failed but if it means what ever it takes to make it through a couple a years and still have a piece of desert called Iraq then you can wave your hands in the air and claim victory. IOW what the fuck is this debate really about? I get the feeling it is a "look, no one wants to debate me so I can stare down my nose, point and laugh at you idiots!" type of debate. You want some one to take you up in debate perhaps you should spell out what exactly will be debated in more than a sentence...

[socratoad]

Being one of the originals on growing list of people on Dirty's ignore list is something I consider a badge of honour :thumbs:

[Dirty Adan]

How exactly does one win this debate?

You've been here longer than me. How are formal debates usually decided, assuming they are?

What measure is there to put this up against to judge whether or not there is a sufficient force.

Personally I'm for leaving the interpretation of "sufficient" open, provided that the participants are encouraged to explore that road further.

As of now if sufficient force meant that there would be no insurgency at all...

In the topic, I laid out the lowest common denominator objective of post-war operations as (I believe) most serious people would see it. I'm willing to entertain a better articulation.

IOW what the fuck is this debate really about?

This debate aims to determine whether the Coalition has provided, is providing and/or will provide sufficient force to achieve the stipulated objective.

I get the feeling it is a "look, no one wants to debate me so I can stare down my nose, point and laugh at you idiots!" type of debate.

Then you think too highly of yourself.

You want some one to take you up in debate perhaps you should spell out what exactly will be debated in more than a sentence...

There's nothing wrong with being clear and concise, and looking at proposals that have been accepted my own doesn't seem terribly different in form.

Ten days, people.

[Clutch]

There's nothing wrong with being clear and concise

Agreed. Perhaps next time you'll try this instead.


and looking at proposals that have been accepted my own doesn't seem terribly different in form.

Form as distinct from content has little to do with the vagueness and slant of your resolution, nor with the shoddy thinking evinced in your reply to the criticism. But I'm not really concerned to contest this claim. I'm prepared to accept that other debate proposals every bit as ill-formulated have been accepted here.

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Hey, I'll take you up on the debate. I don't have any particular knowledge of the subject, but considering how it seems, in all your 450+ posts, you have yet to actually make or rebut a real point, I don't suppose I would need to. We could both just exchange thinly veiled insults for a few posts until we both grow tired of it, as seems to be SOP.

-B

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This debate aims to determine whether the Coalition has provided, is providing and/or will provide sufficient force to achieve the stipulated objective.

DA, I have to agree that the question of determining if the forces will be sufficient is a complex question that can't really be debated reasonably. But if the debate considers current conditions (i.e. is the occupation working?) then that would be suitable.

If this exchange does devolve into vitriolic personal attacks, it will be plain to all that my opponent is the only one sinking to such a level.

I won't let this happen. Statements containing vitriole will either be edited or declined.

Ten days, people.

Keep in mind that sometimes it takes weeks until someone comes along to pick up a gauntlet. Would you then refuse a debate if someone came along after 11 days? This is posturing. No one in FDP has ever declared timed ultimatums.

- NS, FD Mod

[Dirty Adan]

DA, I have to agree that the question of determining if the forces will be sufficient is a complex question that can't really be debated reasonably.

What complex question? The proposal clearly permits the participants to debate the sufficiency of force in the past, present and future independently. Participants are not required to accept any assertion of (in)sufficient force in any tense. The question of future needs and availability is not only reasonable, but put to the warfighters and planners everyday.

Keep in mind that sometimes it takes weeks until someone comes along to pick up a gauntlet. Would you then refuse a debate if someone came along after 11 days? This is posturing. No one in FDP has ever declared timed ultimatums.

If somebody wants to take up the debate after 10 days, I'll be more than happy to. On the other hand, if it's not accepted in 10 days then it will say more about the posturing of some replying to this thread than anyone else's.

[Dirty Adan]

Hey, I'll take you up on the debate. I don't have any particular knowledge of the subject...

That may be a problem. Unless somebody else comes along in the next ten days who does have a better grasp on the subject, you're it.

[Mr Average]

I would not care for this debate personally....however, I would be interested in your views on whether the "war" was legal or illegal in every sense. I take the stand that the war is wrong, and based on lies and deception. If you disagree with this, I would relish the opportunity to exchange our thoughts and views in a structured debate.

In Peace, Mr Average

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

It has come to my attention that Dirty Adan has been banned. This thread will now be closed. If anyone would like to propose a debate with a similar topic, then please feel free to start another thread.

- NS, FD Moderator