The Instigator
64bithuman
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Haroush
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Do we need another War in Iraq?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
64bithuman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 686 times Debate No: 58607
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

64bithuman

Con

1st Round: Acceptance

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.
Debate Round No. 1
64bithuman

Con

Repost from the last debate.

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.
Haroush

Pro

Do we need another War in Iraq? I say yes.

Since Con already went over the history I'll wait to refute that in the next round.

Looking at the current situation with I.S.I.S or (Iraq & Syria Islamic State), it is clear these Muslim Extremist are definitely a threat to the region around them and to ALL nations abroad.

http://www.cnn.com...

http://www.newsmax.com...

This being said, let me give you my perception of I.S.I.S.

1.) They are a very much bigger threat than Al Qaeda.

A.) Despite Al Qaeda is linked with I.S.I.S. , they are a completely different group. The main connection this group has with
Al Qaeda is it is most of the same people, except they now have broke off from Al Qaeda, forming their own group
in order to fuel their MORE EXTREME ways.

" The jihadi militant group is so brutal that even Al Qaeda"s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri disowned it. ISIS has exploited discontent with the Shia-led national government among Iraq"s Sunni population and has been able to rally some elements of Iraq"s Sunni tribes, as well as Sunni armed groups linked to the former regime of Saddam Hussein."

http://www.globalresearch.ca...

2.) They will only create more TENSIONS between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

A.) As we've seen and know, ISIS is a extremist Sunni Muslim group that wants to create a caliphate (Islamic State) that is
solely a Sunni Muslim state. The problem with this is, A.) It is just as bad as a solely Shiite Muslim state. B.) It would
cause more bloodshed that isn't needed between these two Muslim groups.

3.) They don't like the United States and see the U.S. as a threat

A.) I don't think I really need to explain this except for the fact, this proves they are hostile towards the United States and
anything they can do to hurt us, physically or economically, they will do.

4.) They are a threat to other allied countries around them.

Of course we already know how they threaten Israel, but they also threaten Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan,
and all the other nations around them.

Just like Hitler back during WWII, they are doing the exact same thing. That is forming their own Extremist Islamic State and planning to conquer lands around them. Why? The more territory they control, the more power they hold. It is as simple as that.

For right now, this is all I have. If there is anything I may want to include, I'll include in my refutations. Anyways, back over to Con. By the way, thank you Con for being so patient. It is greatly appreciated, and there isn't enough patient people like you in this world!
Debate Round No. 2
64bithuman

Con

Thank you Pro, I get into my rebuttals.

First Contention: “They are a very much bigger threat than Al Qaeda.”

This statement is subjective. Despite what you have said, ISIS is no longer related to Al Qaeda. They are not “most of the same people”, and why they broke away is infinitely more complex than “in order to fuel their MORE EXTREME ways”. Al Qaeda is a hit and run suicide bomber terror network aimed at international jihad. ISIS is an umbrella militia containing various different religious groups aimed at establishing a local Caliphate. Al Qaeda, once a mostly popular group in Iraq, became increasingly unpopular throughout 2007, after it routinely bombed Iraqi peoples, and was subsequently crippled by the US and Iraqi military from 2007-2008.

ISIS simply broke away from Al Qaeda group after they had a dispute this year. In fact, the Al-Nusra Front (friendly to Al Qaeda) has been fighting ISIS for some time.

Essentially, yes, they are a bigger threat to Iraq, but no, they are not the same. ISIS is a militia, Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Notice that the question is not, “Should we do something about ISIS?” it is “Do we need another War?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Second Contention: “They will only create more TENSIONS between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.”

We have already created most of the tensions that exist via the Iraq War. We stirred the pot in the first place. Keep in mind, before the Iraq War, Iraq was a bad place to be, but it was in order. I’m not advocating Saddam Hussein, but you’d have to be a fool to not see the order he kept when he was in power.

Aside from these facts, do you honestly assume that a war will strengthen the relations between the two groups? It worked so well in the past at strengthening relations, after all. (That would be sarcasm).

The groups can’t get along with each other. The solution is not to encourage another war. The solution is to find a compromise in territories. In actuality, the Iraqi people mostly support ISIS. They are not being represented fairly, thanks to Maliki, who we indirectly put in power. The Sunni Iraqi population is strongly in favor of what ISIS is doing. As Henry Habib, professor emeritus of political science at Montreal's Concordia University says, “this could not happen without local support”.

http://www.cbc.ca...

Third Contention: “They don't like the United States and see the U.S. as a threat.”

This idea is remarkably predictable. After bombing them endlessly and destroying their infrastructure, invading their lands, committing war crimes, and implementing our Western beliefs and our Western Governmental systems, it’s not that hard to see why they don’t exactly love the U.S. Especially the Sunni.

I dispute the legitimacy of your quote “anything they can do to hurt us, physically or economically, they will do”. You make the assumption that they are actively searching out ways to hurt the United States, which is childish and ignorant. ISIS’s main goal is regional, not international. A big part of the reason they broke away from Al Qaeda was because Al Qaeda is international, as a quote from Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s current leader, who says “not to fight the deviant groups like the [Shia], the Ismailis, the Qadiyaniat, and deviant Sufis," and focus on "fighting the head of international infidelity,"”

On the other hand, ISIS has been only interested in regional battles since Syria.

Keep in mind, ISIS has been estimated to be only around 6000 members prior to taking Mosul and Tikrit.

Fourth Contention “They are a threat to other allied countries around them.”

So far the group has only been interested in local wars. The rest has been conjecture and speculation on future plans. We must always remember that the Media is sold on fear. We must remember that we first invaded Iraq on a mountain of lies and stretched truth.

Aaron Zelin at the Wahington Institute for Near East Policy says of the Groups alleged 5 year plan and above map “There is nothing official about it nor is there some alleged 5-year plan” and, in fact it is “an old image put out by fans of the group”.

http://qz.com...#/

Your comparison to Adolf Hitler is just a sad, tired comparison without a bottom floor. Hitler was a man of the people, who spoke for the people, and ended up in supreme authority because of it. Ironically enough, the reasons for his arrival directly stem from similar reasons relating to the Arab world. The Treaty of Versailles absolutely decimated Germany after World War I, far past the point where it would ever be able to pay back its reparations. Hitler was personally outraged at Germany and its willingness to give up and sink into debt and failure.

He inspired an entire generation of Germans with his speeches. Hitler is simply a product of rash and ignorant planning from people like President Woodrow Wilson...many of the same planners who broke up the Middle East. All we can do is pray that our blunder in the Middle East didn’t create a Middle Eastern Hitler. Even if it did, these are not technological Germans armed with factories and a united goal. It is not “as simple as that”.

Other Points

War would not help anybody. The solution is to separate the groups, not keep trying to mash them together in a big stew pot. We tried Democracy, we tried War, and this is where those plans got us. If you honestly think another war would help, I would love to hear how this war would be run and how it would help the Iraqi peoples coexist in long lasting peace.

Haroush

Pro

Haroush forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
64bithuman

Con

Pro Forfeits, points are carried on to next round.
Haroush

Pro

Haroush forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
64bithumanHaroushTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
64bithumanHaroushTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF