Do we need another War in Iraq?
Debate Rounds (4)
2nd Round: Arguments (Save the Rebuttals)
3rd + 4th Round: Rebuttals
With the recent developments in Iraq, the question is quite simple. Do we need another war in Iraq to clean up the country? Does the current situation warrant such a war?
I'll be against another Invasion. (Con)
Pro will be for another War/Invasion.
I’ll begin the debate by giving a neat little history lesson on Iraq.
- Mesopotamia several thousand years ago.
- Sumerian Civilization rules for 3000 years
- A handful of Kingdoms; the Babylonians, the Assyrians, (etc. etc.) rule
- the Romans roll in and take over
- A few more Nations take over and get taken over
- The Muslim conquest, which establishes Islam in Iraq
- Black Death kills a third of the Muslim World, and a Mongol Warrior named Tamerlane invades and massacres some 20,000 people in Baghdad
- The Ottomans take over and Iraq is turned into a perpetual battleground for 500 years while the Turks fight to keep control from rival empires.
- World War One takes off, and the Ottomans are finally crushed
- Ignorant white men to draw up the Middle Eastern map
- The British, armed with newfound ideology of self-determination, decide to throw Faisal I in charge of this new country, Iraq. They select Sunni Elites to control the population, a move that would ensure instability, which, naturally, was done on purpose, so they could keep control of the State.
- In 1932, they get “Independence”
- This lasts about ten years, until they throw the old leaders out, prompting the U.K. to invade in the Anglo-Iraqi war, essentially to protect their massive oil well.
- Following yet another military occupation, and a new King, the white man finally can leave Iraq alone.
But no, they cannot. They have a massive revolution. And then another, and another, until a certain General named Saddam Hussein takes over and begins arresting/torturing/killing anybody who defies him. They get in the Iran-Iraq War, a Million plus people die, Genocide follows, gassing, blah, blah, more white people poking the Middle East, until the united Iraq invades Kuwait and the U.S. knocks them back. Then, following the 2001 attacks on the twin towers and some fabricated evidence, George Bush invades in 2003, and helps throw the old leaders out.
Forgive my massive history lesson, but it had to be done. As you can see, we are not new to Iraq.
In fact, we are simply a couple self-important chapters in a massive book. Iraq is barely a country. It is a border that was drawn up by men who had no idea what they were doing. It is a land that has the great misfortune of being rich with oil. The question is this: How can a country that is literally packed with oil, arguably the most valuable resource on earth, be so poor?
Why did we really go into Iraq? I’m not going to sing the same old song and dance, but we didn’t invade Uganda when Idi Amin was slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people. Who benefits? The age old question.
Iraq will not benefit from another invasion. History has proven this. They have been invaded so much that they people barely know what it’s like to make their own choices. They barely have a national identity. The problem is much deeper and much older than most media outlets and politicians are saying. We must leave them alone, not completely, perhaps, but we must let them draw their own borders and figure out how they can best run themselves. Right now, Iraq is a giant melting pot of people who hate each other. If we must direct them, we should aim them to a three-state country.
If you look at the new threat, they are not bent on Islamic hit and run terror attacks. They are coordinated, otherwise they would never have been able to systematically take over cities. These guys are very different than Al-Qaeda. ISIS is considerably more adapt at warfare than al-Qaeda ever was, or is. ISIS has been fighting for a long time, and they’ve become quite good at it. They are also very good at modern wartime methods like propaganda, extortion on a grand scale, and smuggling.
They want a Caliphate, which is essentially a Religious based Direct Democracy, for the entire region. We see this as a bad thing, but it may not be. In fact, it may be what the region needs. Unfortunately, the region is not exactly open to working together as one unit. Force and brutality may be the language of the Middle East, but it is not for us to speak.
64bithuman forfeited this round.
Haroush forfeited this round.
Debate reamains unchallenged and will thereby end as such.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Tie requested, but no debate is going unvoted!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.